pre-sentence reports
TRANSCRIPT
June 2011
Pre-Sentence Reports
i
Pre-Sentence Reports
June 2011
Laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under Section49(2) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, (asamended by paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 13 to The NorthernIreland Act 1998 (Devolution of Policing and JusticeFunctions) Order 2010) by the Department of Justice.
ii
iii
Contents
List of abbreviations iv
Chief Inspector’s Foreword v
Executive Summary vi
Recommendations viii
Section 1 Inspection Report
Chapter 1 Introduction and background 3
Chapter 2 Quality and standards 5
Chapter 3 Delivering a quality service 13
Section 2 Appendices
Appendix 1 Terms of Reference 26
Appendix 2 Initial Assessment Process for Pre-Sentence Reports 29
Appendix 3 Public Protection Sentences 30
Appendix 4 Risk of Serious Harm Procedures 31
Appendix 5 Pre-Sentence Reports by Probation Board office 32
Appendix 6 Probation Board for Northern Ireland Action Plan 33
Appendix 7 Recall Process Flowchart 34
iv
List of abbreviations
ACE Assessment, Case management and Evaluation
DoJ Department of Justice
NICTS Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service
NIPS Northern Ireland Prison Service
PBNI Probation Board for Northern Ireland
PSRs Pre-Sentence Reports
SSRs Specific Sentence Reports
v
Chief Inspector’s Foreword
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) is best known for the supervision of offenders.An equally important but less obvious aspect of its work is the delivery of Pre-Sentence Reports(PSRs) to the courts. A PSR provides the court with an assessment of the nature and causes of adefendant’s offending, the likelihood of re-offending, the risk of harm to the public, information onthe range of appropriate disposals, areas to be addressed and additional measures. These reportshave a major impact on the outcomes for the offender pre and post-sentence as well as for thepublic at large. The PBNI prepares around 6,000 PSRs each year.
The demands on the Probation Board in the production of PSRs are increasing and it is importantthat they are completed within a robust quality assurance framework and that they are positivelyreceived by the court in deciding their sentencing options for offenders. The purpose of theinspection was to consider how the Probation Board assures quality control of PSRs, identifyareas of good practice and make recommendations aimed at improving service delivery.
The overall conclusion from the inspection was that there were clear arrangements in place forthe quality control of PSRs and that there was a high degree of concordance between sentencingoptions and the options given in the PSR. The inspection confirmed the competency of theon-going quality control mechanisms. The quality of the PSRs produced by the Probation Boardwere held in high regard by the courts.
The inspection made a number of recommendations aimed at improving current arrangements,including the need to increase the use of Specific Sentence Reports, where appropriate, and theneed to engage with the Department of Justice (DoJ) concerning the use of PSRs as a vehicletowards influencing Community Sentence Orders.
This inspection was undertaken by Stephen Dolan and Tom McGonigle of CJI. I would like tothank all those involved in the inspection process.
Dr Michael MaguireChief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern IrelandJune 2011
vi
Executive Summary
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) prepares 6,000 Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs)each year. The PSRs provide Sentencers (primarily District Judges) with an objective assessmentof an offender’s likelihood to re-offend, an assessment of the risk of harm and a range ofsentencing disposals to be considered. Pre-Sentence Reports are used by the ParoleCommissioners for Northern Ireland when considering the release of prisoners, the licenceconditions to be imposed and when reviewing recall of determinate sentence prisoners.
Pre-Sentence Reports may also include areas to be addressed for an offender and are usedby probation staff based in prisons and prison staff responsible for offender management andresettlement. As such the reports have a major impact on the outcomes for an offenderpre and post-sentence as well as for the public at large. Their importance in the sentencingframework demands a consistent format, quality delivery and relevance to the users.
The Probation Board has developed a set of Core Standards that provide the mainstay of theBoard’s quality control processes. Implemented in 2000, the Core Standards were revised andupdated in 2006. Interim Standards were introduced in 2009 following the introduction ofpublic protection sentencing and a revised set of Standards will be implemented in 2011.
Complementing the written standards is a gatekeeping process that provides a comprehensivequality control mechanism. Every PSR is subject to gatekeeping appropriate to the experience ofthe report writer and the complexity of the case. A series of regular audits also assesses thequality of the reports and adherence to delivery targets. The Probation Board conduct regularsurveys of Sentencers and satisfaction levels exceed 90% across a range of metrics. In light of thewidening usage of PSRs the user survey could be extended to include the Parole Commissionersand other relevant users in the prisons.
A shorter report known as a Specific Sentence Report (SSR) is available to Sentencers where acertain disposal is under consideration. These reports will indicate to the Sentencer if thedisposal (a Community Service Order or Probation Order) is appropriate. A SSR requires lessinput from the report writer, and at current volumes a move to greater use of SSRs indicatesefficiency gains for the Probation Board. Substituting 10% of the PSRs with SSRs would allowthe re-allocation of resources to meet other work priorities. In light of the current pressure onresources, this would be a worthwhile objective and it is recommended that the Probation Boardand Sentencers review the potential to increase usage of SSRs or some equivalent specific report.
Offenders who are released from prison under licence constitute around 30% of any ProbationOfficer‘s caseload. Inevitably there are times when an offender breaches order or licenceconditions and a Probation Officer is required to take appropriate enforcement action which mayinclude a recommendation for recall to prison. In the case of determinate sentences introducedby the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, any request for recall issued by aProbation Officer must be reviewed by a Parole Commissioner or in exceptional circumstances,by the Offender Recall Unit of the Department of Justice (DoJ). Some recent cases seemed to
vii
fall between the standard and emergency categories, leading to an impromptu or provisional urgentclassification facilitated by Parole Commissioners providing out-of-hours availability. The practicalarrangements supporting this process are subject to ongoing discussions between the ProbationBoard and the Parole Commissioners and within this forum, the classification of standard andemergency recalls would benefit from clarification. Probation Board staff would also benefit fromremote access to PBNI IT systems. Issues arise when information is required by ParoleCommissioners or other bodies outside of normal working hours. The Probation Board operatesan out-of-hours rota system through which Area Managers handle emergency recall requests.
The Reducing Re-offending Strategy to be launched by the Minister of Justice aims to reshapefundamentally the approach to tackling the factors leading people into the criminal justice system.The Probation Board understands that the timescales for this strategy now extend to February2012. The inclusion of a review of community sentencing in the strategy is driven by the dataindicating that community disposals are more successful than custody in reducing re-offendingby adults convicted of less serious crimes. The Scottish Executive have already legislated for apresumption in favour of community sentences where short custodial sentences are beingconsidered. Unlike report writers in Northern Ireland, who are trained to report in an objectivemanner and not seek to influence a Sentencer one way or the other, writers of court reports inScotland were used to conditioning the opinion of Sentencers towards community disposals.
The review of community sentencing and the associated effectiveness of short custodialsentences opens up the possibility that persuasion or presumption towards communitysentencing could be introduced. Whether persuasive or presumptive, the legislative requirementsin relation to PSRs are set out in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, andconfirmed in the subsequent 2008 Order. As such, PBNI are of the view that such reports are ofvalue in assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with an offenderand contain the relevant information. The PSR provides information for judges to decide in whatenvironment (whether custody or community) interventions may be applied to best effect foreach individual appearing in court.
There were some suggestions that amendments in the sentencing framework changed therelationship between the offender and the Probation Officer with release now dependent on agood report to the parole hearing. There was also sentiment that post-release supervision couldbe more problematic as previously offenders consented to release conditions whereas the newsentence licensing conditions were imposed. In practical terms the adherence to the conditionsis not that much different, but the relationship between the Probation Officer and the offender isdeemed to have become more formal. It remains to be seen whether these concerns materialisein a tangible manner.
Overall, the Probation Board provides high quality and timely PSRs. The quality control systemsare of a high standard, internal management is focused and relevant, and training is comprehensiveand adding value. The widening net of users indicates the increasing value of PSRs in offendermanagement and the positive response in surveys demonstrates their importance within thesentencing system. There is scope to increase the uptake of shorter reports to introduce someefficiencies and the advent of public protection sentences is an opportunity for the ProbationBoard to further develop working arrangements with other bodies.
viii
Recommendations
Strategic Recommendations
• The Probation Board should restate the Core Standards objective as delivering thePre-Sentence Report to the court on time. (A target of 95% to 100% should be set)(paragraph 3.13).
• The Probation Board should increase the usage of Specific Sentence Reports (or other suitablereports). A target of 35% per annum should be set (paragraph 3.31).
Operational Recommendations
• The Probation Board should usefully discuss with third party service providers how best todeliver relevant data from Pre-Sentence Reports (paragraph 2.26).
• The Probation Board should survey other users of Pre-Sentence Reports in conjunction withthe Sentencer survey (paragraph 3.10).
• The Probation Board need to identify the specific reasons for poor uptake of Specific SentenceReports and if necessary, develop reports that meet the requirements of Sentencers but areless resource intensive (paragraph 3.30).
• The threshold for standard and emergency recalls should be clearly demarcated (paragraph3.42).
• Area Managers should have remote access to the Probation Board IT systems for out-of-hoursworking (paragraph 3.43).
• The Probation Board should gather information on the outcomes of cases where Pre-SentenceReports are provided to identify possible indicators of a correlation between the sentencesand the options outlined in the report (paragraph 3.48).
Inspection Report
1Section
1
2
3
Introduction and background
CHAPTER 1:
What is a Pre-Sentence Report?
1.1 Inevitably when a judge adjourns acase for reports they are referring toPre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) preparedby the Probation Board for NorthernIreland (PBNI) (henceforth theProbation Board). A PSR is defined as‘a report in writing, prepared in accordancewith Northern Ireland Core Standards andService Requirements, and submitted by aProbation Officer or qualified SocialWorkerof a Board or authorised Trust, with a viewto assisting the court to determine themost suitable method of dealing with adefendant and which imposes a restrictionon liberty commensurate with theseriousness of the offence(s).’ 1
1.2 The primary purpose of a PSR issuccinctly described in the ProbationBoard’s 2010-11 Business Plan as ‘the riskassessment of offenders to assist judges indetermining an appropriate sentence andParole Commissioners in making decisionsabout release from custody.’ It alsoprovides Sentencers with a professionalassessment of the nature and causes ofa defendant’s offending behaviour withan assessment of the likelihood of re-offending and the risk of harm to thepublic. The PSR will identify any actionsthat may reduce the likelihood of re-
offending and should include anassessment of the nature andseriousness of the offence and itsimpact on the victim.
1.3 Thus PSRs form a considerable part ofthe work of the Probation Board; outof a total of 9,000 reports delivered tocourts, PSRs account for around 6,000.In round terms the Probation Boarddedicates between 10% and 15% of itsresources to the delivery of PSRs.
Development of Pre-Sentence Reports
1.4 The Probation Board (Northern Ireland)Order 1982 led to Probation Officersproviding reports to the courts aboutoffenders circumstances and homesurroundings to assist them indetermining the most suitable methodof dealing with that person. Thesereports covered social history andpersonal circumstances to informSentencers but in the absence ofprescriptive guidelines there was adegree of latitude. Inevitably theyincluded a range of findings that ledto an inconsistent format that tendedto undermine the objectivity of thereports and also made it difficult forthe Probation Board to quality assurethe product and monitor or measuretheir use by Sentencers.
1 Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
4
1.5 The implementation of the CriminalJustice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996,specifically Article 2(2), provided thelegislative authority for PSRs. To ensurethe consistency and quality of thereports presented to the courts theProbation Board prepared a set ofwritten standards that incorporated thepractice notes issued to staff and alsothe collective experience of probationstaff. These Interim Standards wereagreed with the Northern IrelandOffice and Sentencers. Followingimplementation in 2000, these InterimStandards became known as the CoreStandards.
1.6 Since 2000 the Core Standards havebeen revised and updated further withthe latest Core Standards implementedin June 2006. Running alongside thedevelopment of the Standards by theProbation Board is the SentencingFramework Initiative which (under theCriminal Justice (Northern Ireland)Order 2008) introduced publicprotection sentences, determinatecustodial sentences, curfews/electronicmonitoring and related structuresincluding Parole Commissioners andthe Offender Recall Unit. The CoreStandards were updated with InterimStandards and practice notes governingthe risk assessment of those chargedwith specified or serious offences whoare eligible for pubic protectionsentences introduced in 2008.
1.7 An abbreviated form of a PSR is knownas a Specific Sentence Report (SSR) andis intended to provide the court withuseful but less detailed informationabout a defendant and offence(s) toassist them to determine whetherhe/she is suitable for a specific sentenceenvisaged by the court. Its purpose is to
speed up the provision of information toassist the court in passing sentencewithout delay. A SSR is most likelyto be used where the court envisagesa Community Service Order or aProbation Order which does not haveadditional requirements attached.For the purposes of Article 9(3) of theCriminal Justice (Northern Ireland)Order 1996, a SSR is equivalent to aPSR.
1.8 In 2009-10 a total of 325 SSRs wereprepared by the Probation Board.
1.9 As part of the ongoing assessment ofservices the Probation Board completeda detailed internal review of PSRs in2010 and concluded that they were‘efficient, effective and contributed to thedelivery of justice’.
1.10 The Terms of Reference for thisinspection are illustrated at Appendix 1but generally the aim of this inspectionwas to:
• assess how the Probation Boardensure quality control of the PSRsand develop them to reflect userrequirements, changes in legislationand feedback from practiceexperience;
• identify areas of good and poorperformance and the underlyingreasons for the performanceachieved; and
• make recommendations aimed atimproving service delivery.
2.1 The Probation Board’s Core Standardsand Service Requirements lay down allthe activities of the Board and define theService Standards for activities rangingfrom Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) tothe supervision of life sentenceprisoners. Ultimately, the over-ridingauthority for PSRs lies with the Ministerof Justice, exercised by approving theCore Standards developed by theProbation Board. Monitoring andfeedback informs the development ofthe Core Standards and a comprehensivemanual, dedicated training and regularline management meetings inform staffand contribute to the maintenance ofquality.
2.2 Consistently delivering a quality productor service combines, amongst otherthings, a relevant specification, regulartesting or audits, a mechanism toprevent sub-standard delivery anddevelopment of improved products orservices to reflect user feedback andbest practice. Underpinning this are:
• controls such as defined qualitystandards, direction frommanagement, prescribed changecontrol procedures, audit and goodrecord keeping;
• competence such as knowledge,skills, experience, training andqualifications; and
• cultural/business elements such asintegrity, motivation, organisationalloyalty, understanding customerneeds and quality relationships.
Thus a good PSR can be defined in anumber of ways, as a product meetingquality standards, as a provider ofrelevant advice and as a process todeliver the reports on time and developthem to reflect users’ requirements.During the course of this inspection themonitoring, feedback and quality controlmechanisms used by the ProbationBoard were assessed. The qualitycontrol and development processes areexplored in the following sections andthe efficient delivery and effectivenessof the reports are discussed in thesucceeding chapters.
Quality Control
2.3 The Core Standards define the qualitymodel and proposed structure andcontent of each PSR. Using theseStandards the Probation Board havedeveloped an architecture of qualitycontrol which incorporates monitoringagainst standards, gateway processes,peer review, training and independentassessment.
2.4 As the PSRs have evolved to reflectchanging demands from users and
5
Quality and standards
CHAPTER 2:
6
also the legislative environment, theStandards have also been revised in 2006and 2009 following their initialimplementation in 2000. The ProbationBoard commenced a further review oftheir Standards in the current year,which concluded in March 2011.
2.5 The development of PSRs from theirforerunner, Social Enquiry Reports, seesa greater emphasis on verification of theevidence presented. Medical histories,financial circumstances, personalcircumstances and previous offending areall examined and validated by probationstaff to provide a dependable andempirical assessment of the offenderin their life setting, their likelihoodof re-offending and, most recently, anassessment of their risk of seriousharm to the public.
2.6 In the course of this inspectionobservation and participation in training,a review of a number of Pre-Sentenceand Specific Sentence Reports,discussions with Directors, Managersand probation staff, sight of performancemanagement measures and Business andCorporate Plans provided Inspectorswith a positive overview of the extensiveand comprehensive measures in placeto deliver a quality product. The keyelements of this - managementstructure, gatekeeping and developmentof PSRs are discussed in more detailbelow.
Management Structure
2.7 Written guidance and training are thecornerstones supporting ProbationOfficers in presenting a quality PSR, butmaintaining quality in the operationalenvironment requires effective
management structures and oversight.The Probation Board had a clear linemanagement structure for the PSRfunction. It was integrated into theline management role throughout theorganisation as all the Probation Boardoffices deliver PSRs. A detailed processflowchart (Appendix 2) describes theassessment process for PSRs. This wasincluded in the training and also acted asan aide memoir for Probation Officers.
2.8 The Area Managers are the first line ofoversight and quality control and thoseManagers interviewed as part of thisinspection demonstrated a high degreeof interaction with their area staff andextensive knowledge of the Officers’caseload. This was confirmed indiscussions with Probation Officerswho gave positive testimonials inrespect of their Line Managers.
2.9 A significant degree of time and effortwas invested by area management andheadquarters staff in oversight ofthe PSRs. Inspectors saw monthlyvalidation requirements from the Boardheadquarters and Area Managers’reports on PSRs along with a range ofperformance indicators collated by theBusiness Planning and DevelopmentUnit. Annual internal audits had beenintroduced in 2006, and there wasevidence of a systematic feedback loopto communicate the results of theseexercises to staff. Probation staffconfirmed the discussion of PSRs atlocal office meetings where issues ofquality and caseload were discussed.
2.10 The senior management team of theProbation Board regularly reviewedkey performance measures to monitorthe delivery of PSRs and reviewed
7
the results of the Sentencer surveys.These performance measures were inturn reported regularly to the ProbationBoard, who received reports frommanagement on PSR related issues suchas public protection sentencing and thepilot projects to extend usage of SSR.
2.11 The Probation Board reflects thestrategic importance of PSRs bypresenting them as the first objectivein their Annual Business Plan 2009-10.It states that they are:
‘1. To provide evidence-based advice toSentencers and Parole Commissioners.
The Probation Board will meet therequirements of Sentencers and ParoleCommissioners for reports on offenders toenable them to carry out theirresponsibilities.
The Probation Board will report on thenumber of Pre-Sentence Reports that aredelivered to courts in accordance with therequired timescales. The Probation Boardwill also survey Sentencers to ascertaintheir views on the value of its reports.’
2.12 The structured elements of monitoring,surveys and feedback are furthersupported by regular communicationbetween the Probation Board andSentencers. As a case in point a SeniorManager in Belfast was in regularcontact with Sentencers in the majorLaganside Court to solicit views, dealwith queries and provide a feedbackchannel for improvement and topromote the work of the ProbationBoard. Other managers in the ruralareas also had regular contact withSentencers.
Gatekeeping
2.13 The Core Standards define the purposeof gatekeeping as:
• ‘To ensure that each report is of therequired quality standard before it issubmitted to the court; and
• to provide a progressive means ofassisting all report writers tocontinuously improve their reportwriting skills.’
The gatekeeping process requires thereport writer to forward the report toa reviewer, receive feedback, if necessaryamend the report and record theactions.
2.14 Within this process there were levelsof gatekeeping applied. In the instanceof PSRs allocated on murder offences,serious and/or specified offences, asdefined by the Criminal Justice(Northern Ireland) Order 2008, thesewere subject to gatekeeping by an AreaManager. In complex cases and thosewhere there was likely to be a highprofile media interest, the level ofgatekeeping extended to more seniorOfficers.
2.15 Area Managers also provided the firstline of quality control through thegatekeeping process whereby everyreport prepared by newly qualifiedProbation Officers were assessed againstthe Standards. As Probation Officersgained experience the gatekeeping rolewas undertaken by Area Managers, or apeer review by experienced colleaguesto ensure that all PSRs were subject toreview. Area Managers furtherundertook regular quality reviews, andcomplex reports for sex offenders andserious offenders were subject to a
comprehensive check. Inspectors notedthe gatekeeping proformas included inthe Core Standards and evidencedcompleted gatekeeping proformas in anumber of the probation offices. Indiscussion with Probation Officers inthe field and at training events theimportance of gatekeeping and therequirement for every report to besubject to some level of gatekeepingwas evident.
2.16 Area Managers provided evidence toInspectors of the type of feedbackpresented to report writers followinggatekeeping. The use of the correctterms when describing likelihood ofre-offending and risk of harm was acommon theme, as was reiterationof avoiding the term dangerous. Theseterms have particular significance in thecontext of public protection sentencingand the gatekeeping mechanismprovided valuable assurance. Inspectorsnoted during the training programmethat emphasis of primary responsibilityfor a quality PSR lay with the ProbationOfficer writing the report, withgatekeeping acting in a secondarycapacity.
2.17 Overlying the gatekeeping role was aformal audit of PSRs conducted by theProbation Board Business PlanningUnit in conjunction with the AssistantDirector for the Northern IrelandCourts and Tribunals Service (NICTS).
2.18 In interview with a number of AreaManagers, Probation Officers andDirector level staff, Inspectors satisfiedthemselves that gatekeeping was seen asa key step in providing a quality productand also in tailoring PSRs to meet theneeds of local Sentencers.
8
Developing Pre-Sentence Reports
2.19 The ongoing development of the CoreStandards provides a practical insightinto the approach taken by theProbation Board to continuouslyimprove the reports. The originalStandards rightly focused on a standardformat and prescribed style and contentto ensure consistency and provide abasis for comparisons. Through severaliterations the Core Standards have beenupdated to reflect changes in legislation,the introduction of public protectionsentences being a case in point, and alsothe findings of reviews of PSRs,experience of practice and discussionswith Sentencers. The updating of theStandards is managed through linemanagement structures before approvalby Senior Management, the Board andultimately the DoJ.
2.20 The most recent development of theCore Standards moves away from aseries of prescriptive report descriptionsand templates to a thematic approachthat defines key principles but givesscope in the format and content ofthe reports. A key consideration indeveloping the new Core Standards wascombining the less prescriptive guidancewith the need to retain consistency,meet certain service requirements andan evidenced-based approach. The keythemes in the new Standards focus on:
• sound judgement using professionalknowledge and training;
• risk assessment;• a realistic approach to sentence
options;• partnership approach; and• reports proportionate to the user.
staff and prison-based Probation Officersalso used the PSRs to prepare relevantprogrammes of work and in the case ofvery short and time served sentences, toprepare release plans. Inspectors metwith and discussed the role of PSRs withthese staff. These recipients providedpositive feedback in respect of thetimeliness of delivery of PSRs and thequality of the reports.
2.25 A number of other organisations (thirdparty providers such as NIACRO andExtern) supply services to offenderspre and post-release and benefit frominformation about offenders. They areprovided with extract information fromthe PSR and would welcome a dialoguewith the Probation Board to apply somestructure to the extent and nature ofthe information provided. Perhaps bydefining a specific format for third partyproviders to comply with dataprotection regulations.
2.26 The Probation Board shouldusefully discuss with third partyservice providers how best todeliver relevant data fromPre-Sentence Reports.
Sentencing Framework Initiative
2.27 At strategic level, DoJ not onlyapprove, but also greatly influence thedevelopment of the Core Standards.The most recent example of this isafforded by the Sentencing FrameworkInitiative and the Criminal Justice(Northern Ireland) Order 2008 whichintroduced public protection sentencesmirroring similar arrangementsimplemented in England and Walesunder the Criminal Justice Act 2003.The major elements of the Criminal
9
2.21 The various key elements of a reportwere defined with additional informationon how each of the specific reportsreflects these themes. The central pointbeing to deliver a relevant product tothe user and recognising that there is aspectrum of reports and not simplyeither a standard PSR or a SSR.Inspectors met with the teamresponsible for the revision of theCore Standards and confirmed theconsultative process, the oversight bymanagement and the process by whichthe new Standards would be approved,implemented and rolled out across theService.
Widening use of Pre-Sentence Reports
2.22 The revisions to the Core Standardsalso takes account of the widening netof PSR users. Besides those obvioususers - such as defence counsel andthe prosecution, the ParoleCommissioners for Northern Ireland,following the introduction of publicprotection sentencing, necessarily requireknowledge of the PSRs to impose licenceconditions and review sentence recalls.
2.23 Increasingly, the Parole Commissionersuse PSRs as a valuable baselineassessment of the offender duringhearings, to consider suitability forrelease of offenders serving ExtendedCustodial and Indeterminate CustodialSentences (known as ECS and ICS).
2.24 The importance of PSRs to prisonauthorities is also increasing wereshort tariff public protection sentencesare made. The work to preparesentence plans, and in the case of ShortDeterminate Custody Sentences licenceconditions had to be prepared. Prison
10
Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008with implications for the ProbationBoard were:
• the statutory definition of seriousharm posed by an offender;
• the concept of dangerousness;• the role of the Parole Commissioners
and Offender Recall Unit indeterminate sentence recalls; and
• the role of Parole Commissioners insetting licence conditions.
2.28 The legislation2 defined serious harm as‘death or serious injury, whether physicalor psychological’ and dangerousness as‘whether there is a significant risk tomembers of the public of serious harmoccasioned by the commission by theoffender of further such offences.’
2.29 In turn Sentencers assessed thedangerousness of an individual whendeciding upon the nature and extent ofthe public protection sentence to beawarded and required this to bepresented in PSRs.
2.30 The issue for the Probation Boardwas to provide an evidence-basedassessment of risk of serious harmissues to assist the court in itsdetermination of dangerousness withoutspecifically assessing or indicatingdangerousness in the PSR. In aninterview with senior ProbationBoard staff and during training eventsInspectors were led through theProbation Board process using anactual case study.
2.31 In the first instance the Probation BoardACE3 risk assessment tool was used tojudge likelihood (will an incident
happen), imminence (when will ithappen), as well as a risk of seriousharm threshold. Where the thresholdwas reached it triggered, a complete riskof serious harm assessment using theRisk Assessment 1 – risk assessmenttool. Any indication of a risk of seriousharm had to be validated by the AreaManager within two days of completionof the risk assessment. Following that,the Probation Officer had to convenea risk management meeting withinfive days. This was a multi-agencymeeting including the ProbationBoard psychology staff and the PSNI.The decision of the risk managementmeeting was also included in the PSR.
2.32 The combination of likelihood,imminence and risk of serious harmfactors gives rise to the ProbationBoard Risk of Serious Harm Model(see diagram below). Where all threefactors converge, meets the concept ofsignificance risk of serious harm in thelegislation whilst leaving the decisionon dangerousness to the Sentencers.This approach preserves the neutralrole of probation, providing theSentencers with relevant informationwithout impinging on their primacy indetermining dangerousness.
2 Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.3 Assessment, Case management and Evaluation system.
Serious Harm
Likelihood Imminence
Risk ofSerious Harm
11
2.33 The importance of the assessment ofrisk of serious harm lies in the directinfluence this has on the nature andextent of the sentence imposed on theoffender. The Probation Board haveinvested significantly in clarifying thisassessment. It was a specific feature inthe induction training attended byInspectors and is encapsulated in aprocess flowchart as an aide memoirto staff. (Appendix 7).
2.34 Some Probation Officers suggestedchanges in the sentencing frameworkaltered their relationship with theoffender and in some way aligned theProbation Board more with theprosecution. There was also sentimentthat post-release supervision could bemore problematic as the previousCustody Probation Orders werepredicated on the offenders acceptanceof the conditions whereas, the newsentence licensing conditions wereimposed. In practical terms theadherence to the conditions is notthat much different but the relationshipbetween the Probation Officer and theoffender is deemed to have becomemore formal. It remains to be seenwhether these concerns are realised.
Training and Development
2.35 The Probation Board Corporateand Business Plan 2008-11 explicitlyrecognises the importance of trainingand stated one of the primary valuesof the Probation Board as ‘the ongoingdevelopment of a learning culture will allowus to review our practice and use allopportunities to develop as a professionalorganisation.’
2.36 This is reflected in the provision of adedicated Learning and DevelopmentUnit and Inspectors attended elementsof the induction programme coveringPSRs, assessing risk of serious harmand public protection sentences.The training was of a consistently highstandard and delivered by practitionerswho are qualified trainers. The groupelement of the training was particularlyinformative allowing the discussion oftheory to be interspersed with theexperiences of probation practitionersworking in the community. The mix ofexperienced Officers and trainees alsoprovided a valuable cross fertilisationand underpinned the practical relevanceof the training. Of particular meaningwas the requirement for trainees toprepare a PSR using a case studyfollowed by a live presentation tothe presiding District Judge of Belfast.The general view of participants wasthat the opportunity to practice deliveryof a PSR in a courtroom environmentwas invaluable despite being achallenging task.
2.37 To complement the induction trainingthe Probation Board provided 17separate training events attended by188 staff to clarify the organisationalresponse to the changes in sentencingintroduced by the Criminal Justice(Northern Ireland) Order 2008.
12
13
Delivering a quality service
CHAPTER 3:
Comparison of audit of Pre-Sentence Reports 2009-10
Area 2009 2010
PSR prepared with two or more interviews 52% 71%
Explanation on PSR if less than two interviews 34% 57%
At least one interview conducted at offender’s home 33% 51%
Offender had opportunity to have sight of report prior to sentence 48% 76%
PSR was suitable to have been an SSR 24% 15%
PSR recommends additional requirement or programme 35% 30%
PSR might have included a further additional requirement or programme 10% 6%
PSR with no additional requirement that might have included an 20% 20%additional requirement or programme
Measuring Performance
3.1 The Probation Board utilise a series ofperformance measures to ensure qualityand user satisfaction, the key elementof which is adherence to the CoreStandards containing clear guidance toProbation Officers, and defining thestructure style and suggested contentof the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR). TheStandards are supported by qualitytargets, consistency through gatekeeping,compliance audits, user surveys andperformance management.
3.2 As part of its overall monitoringarrangements, the Probation Board hadimplemented a regular audit of PSRs in2006. These audits were comprehensiveand generated useful data which waspresented to staff via regular teammeetings. Most recently audits werecarried out in February 2009, February2010 and August 2010. The auditsfocused on the number of interviews,home visits, sight of report andsuitability for Specific Sentence Report(SSR).
3.5 Treading the line between writing areport that is relevant to sentencingbut is not seen by the Sentencers asimpinging on their independentsentencing role is a learned skill, andwhilst Core Standards give guidance,the input of an experienced colleagueprovides added value. Inspectorsassessed the graduated level of supportprovided from a practice teacheroverseeing trainees and the mentoringof newly qualified staff by Area Managersto the peer review process for moreexperienced staff. Inspectors conclude itmatched support and supervision to therelevant needs of the individual Officer.It is an efficient use of resources andInspectors commend this approach.
Sentencer Surveys
3.6 Pre-Sentence Reports are mostly seenas court reports with the Sentencers
3.3 Overall there is an improvement in theareas covering interviews, home visitsand sight of the reports by offenders.The area of programmerecommendations remained more orless the same. The fall in the numberof reports deemed suitable for SSRs isworthy of more examination. Only 5%of reports are SSRs suggesting that thisfigure should have risen, not fallen.
3.4 Area Managers also gave feedbackregularly in respect of the PSRs and staffcontributed to the continuousimprovement programme. This processseemed to work well and interviewswith probation staff confirmed that thefeedback from staff and managers gaverise to tangible action, ranging fromadvice on the preferences of localSentencers to suggested improvementsregarding the main Standards.
14
Relevant area: Pre-Sentence Reports 2002 2004 2007
Analysis of offence: risk to public 100% 96% Not available
Analysis of offence: risk of re-offending 98% 96% Not available
Analysis of offender: risk to public 98% 98% 97%
Analysis of offender: risk of re-offending 91% 94% 94%
Quality and detail of sentencing proposal 98% 90% 98%
Appropriateness of sentencing proposal 98% 85% 92%
Objectivity of PSR 96% 91% 100%
Overall value in reaching a sentencing decision 98% 84% 94%
On time delivery of report 96% 89% 97%
Length of report 95% 79% 95%
Requests for Specific Sentence Reports 2002 2004 2007
Regularly request 10% 9% 38%
Occasionally request 54% 46% 30%
Never request 36% 44% 32%
Survey of Sentencers regarding value of Pre-Sentence Reports
15
increase in the number of Sentencersregularly requesting SSRs from 2004to 2007. As discussed in subsequentsections of this report, the number ofSSRs delivered to courts has not greatlyincreased with 256 SSRs in 2008-09 and284 SSRs in 2009-10.
3.9 Whilst primarily a court report,discussions with other users of PSRsconfirmed their value to a wideraudience, including prosecutors, theParole Commissioners and prisonauthorities. With the advent of publicprotection sentences the extent ofusage of PSRs will increase and theProbation Board should survey theseother users in conjunction with theirSentencer survey.
3.10 The Probation Board shouldsurvey other users of Pre-SentenceReports in conjunction with theSentencer survey.
Timeliness
3.11 The timely delivery of a PSR assists theSentencers and also contributes to theefficient delivery of court business. TheCore Standards indicate PSRs should beprepared within 20 days of request, butin practice the courts specify the dateon which a report should be available.In 2009-10 this varied between 23 and26 days from the date requested tothe date required. The survey data for2008-09 and 2009-10 is shown on thefollowing page.
The most significant trend is animprovement in the timeliness figuresfrom 87% in Quarter 1 of 2008-09 toover 95% throughout 2009-10. These
4 Indeterminate sentences for public protection.A joint inspection by HMI Probation and HMI Prisons, March 2010.
being the primary users. The ProbationBoard conducts regular surveys ofSentencers to gauge the value of thereports. The response from Sentencersis very positive with results for the lastthree surveys shown on previous page.
3.7 Absolute comparisons with otherjurisdictions rely on like for like dataand this is skewed by differences in thevolume of reports delivered, legislationand the courts in which certain casesare heard. Whilst not a definitivecomparison, a recent inspection,following the introduction ofindeterminate sentences for publicprotection in England and Wales,reviewed the quality of PSRs forthese cases and found4:
Assessment criteria 2010
Overall value in reaching a 65%sentencing decision
Analysis of offender: risk of 83%re-offending
Analysis of offender: risk to 62%the public
Analysis of offence: risk to the public 76%
On the face of it these findings supportthe views of the Sentencer surveysthat the quality of reports presented tocourts by the Probation Board forNorthern Ireland are of a high standard.Inspectors were told that the numberof requests to Probation Officers toappear in court and explain theirreports had fallen.
3.8 An interesting statistic in the NorthernIreland survey results was the fourfold
16
figures indicate a very high level oftimeliness and improvements over time,although there may be anomalies withinthe overall statistics that benefit fromdetailed analysis.
3.12 An earlier CJI inspection of avoidabledelay5 reported that during 2007-08year, 8% (30 cases), of the total numberof Crown Court reports delayed, couldbe attributed to the Probation Board.A subsequent audit of the 30 casesindicated that the Probation Board onlycontributed to delay in nine of thesecases constituting responsibility for lessthan 3%.
3.13 Inspectors reviewed the monitoring ofthe timeliness data and concluded thatthe reporting of statistics to theManagement Board and regular liaison
between PBNI and the NICTS areessential to maintain this level ofperformance. One issue arose – thedelivery target of 20 days is attained inaround 50%-55% of cases whereas, asobserved above, delivery to the courton time is the reported target and thefigure uppermost in the minds ofSentencers and probation staff. TheProbation Board should restatethe Core Standards objective asdelivering the Pre-Sentence Reportto the court on time. (A target of95% to 100% should be set).
Resources
3.14 The Probation Board received additionalfunding during 2008-11 to increase itscapacity in relation to addressinganticipated rises in workload due to thenew legislation. They made structuralchanges replicating the IntensiveSupervision Unit structure across allareas of Northern Ireland, and alsoinvested in front line service delivery,with the recruitment of ProbationOfficers and Area Managers. (The annualbudget from the Northern IrelandPrison Service (NIPS) is £1.6 million tofund probation services in all threeprisons to undertake a wide range ofduties, underpinned by a Service LevelAgreement in each prison).
3.15 The Probation Board has realisedeconomies of scale through theestablishment of a Specialist AssessmentUnit in Belfast that produces 70% of thePSRs in the Belfast area and one thirdof all the Probation Board PSRs.The juxtaposition of the LagansideMagistrates’ Courts and the Crownand High Courts to the Assessment
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
100
Proportion of PSRs sent on time in 2008-09 (%)
80
8789
98 97
85
90
95
Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4
100
Proportion of PSRs sent on time in 2009-10 (%)
80
9697
959695
5 Criminal Justice Inspection report on Avoidable Delay, June 2010. www.cjini.org
Unit also facilitates the timely transferof the reports to the Sentencers.
3.16 Time spent preparing PSRs reduces thetime available for other core activities,especially supervision. The new JusticeBill introduces conditional cautions andnew partnerships for community safety.The availability of curfews and electronictagging since 2009 can also increase theworkload of Probation Officers. Add tothis the increasing pressure on financialresources in the wider NorthernIreland public sector and any efficienciesin the sphere of report writing in theProbation Board would be verywelcome.
3.17 In rural areas staff combine preparationof PSRs with their other duties. Almosthalf of the PSRs are prepared in ruralareas.6 Two issues were raised withInspectors. These were:
• the lack of remote access to theProbation Board IT system in ruralcourts made it more difficult torespond to court requests forSSRs; and
• increases in workload requiredArea Managers to prepare PSRs.
The first issue should be rectifiedthrough the proposed implementationof encrypted laptops and remote access.The second issue could also be regardedas a positive factor in maintainingpractical skills of Area Managers.
3.18 SSRs are an abbreviated form of PSRswhich are intended to provide thesentencing court with useful but limitedinformation about a defendant andoffence(s) to assist the court in
determining the suitability of thedefendant for a specific sentenceenvisaged by the court. Its purpose isto speed up the provision of informationto assist the court in passing sentencewithout delay. SSRs are most likely tobe used where the court envisages aCommunity Service Order or aProbation Order without additionalrequirements attached.
3.19 Despite a number of initiatives, includingpilot projects, to encourage the useof SSRs their uptake has remainedstubbornly low. In 2010 the ProbationBoard prepared almost 6,000 PSRs butonly 325 SSRs representing less than5% of the total. Even though the uptakeis low there is some evidence to showthat it does increase following Sentencersurveys indicating that raising awarenessamong Sentencers can be beneficial.
3.20 Inspectors discussed the possiblereasons for a low uptake with someSentencers and the Probation Boardstaff. Whilst no quantitative analysisof the reasons is available the generalconcerns mentioned included:
• a preference for PSRs due to thegreater amount of social historyand offence analysis compared withthe SSR;
• a perception that a request for aSSR precludes a PSR;
• Sentencers preferring a PSR as itleaves open the full range ofsentencing options;
• the need for a visible presence of aProbation Officer in court;
• facilities to access necessary data incourt and to hold interviews withoffenders;
17
6 Appendix 5 provides a breakdown of PSRs by area.
• SSRs failing to flag up previousconvictions or give enoughinformation in respect of likelihoodto re-offend;
• Sentencers’ awareness of theavailability of SSRs;
• PSRs include a full risk assessmentthat will detect risk of serious harm;
• a preference for SSRs that are morethan one sentence; and
• a concern that the SSRs do notadequately address the issue of riskof serious harm.
Experience in England andWales
3.21 Direct comparisons of the process andoutcomes in England and Wales shouldbe treated with caution and is indicativerather than definitive. Thus it is withinthat frame of reference that evidenceof changes to reporting in England andWales should be treated. Pre-SentenceReports and Specific Sentence Reportsare available to courts in England andWales and a policy of promoting theuse of SSRs has seen a dramatic shifttowards the shorter reporting format.In Manchester 80% of court reportsare SSRs7.
3.22 In recent years the Probation Service ofEngland and Wales has promoted theuse of a fast delivery PSR, which followsthe same structure as a PSR but isshorter and can be delivered orally.
3.23 Comparing 2009 to 2010, the number ofcourt reports prepared by the ProbationBoard in England and Wales remainedstable at 230,000 reports per year.Within this the number of standard PSRswritten in Quarter 1 2009 compared toQuarter 1 2010 fell 23% (from 32,057
18
to 24,766) and in the same periods thenumber of fast delivery Pre-SentenceReports rose 27% (up from 23,100 to29,292).
3.24 Increasing the usage of SSRs deliversefficiency savings to the ProbationBoard as estimates of the time taken toprepare the two reports indicates that aSSR requires six hours less than a PSR.
3.25 On the basis of 6,000 sentence reportsper year increasing the proportionof SSRs to 25% would release theavailability of Probation Officers forother core duties.
3.26 In preparing new Standards theProbation Board are considering optionsfor court reports. They have identifiedthat 85% of PSRs for offenders indicatethere was no risk of harm. The ACEassessment identifies low, medium andhigh categories in assessing likelihoodof re-offending. Thus a one size fits allPSR may be inappropriate. Rather thanselecting either a PSR or a SSR aspectrum of reports could be preparedbased upon the risk assessment and theseriousness of the offence.
3.27 Addressing the concerns of Sentencersis necessary if any initiative to increaseusage of alternatives to PSRs is tosucceed. Some of the answers alreadyexist, as SSRs include a risk assessmentand have a trigger point leading to a fullPSR where required. The reports do nothave to be a single sentence and someprobation staff state that Sentencersprefer reports with offender and offenceanalysis. SSRs could be repackaged as aless detailed PSR providing Sentencerswith the range of data but in an abridgedformat.
7 CJI inspection report on Avoidable Delay, June 2010. www.cjini.org
19
3.28 There is ongoing dialogue between theProbation Board and Sentencers atlocal level as mentioned earlier, withsignificant support from the presidingDistrict Judge. The Probation Boardhas presented the case for SSRs atthe Judicial Studies Board and atthe Criminal Justice Issues Group.The Director of Probation and theLord Chief Justice have discussedincreasing usage of SSRs.
3.29 Against this positive backdrop, in respectof streamlining the delivery of courtreports and discourse between theJudicial Studies Board and the ProbationBoard, to bottom out issues and addressthem would be useful.
3.30 The Probation Board need toidentify the specific reasons forpoor uptake of Specific SentenceReports and if necessary,develop reports that meet therequirements of Sentencersbut are less resource intensive.
3.31 The Probation Board shouldincrease the usage of SpecificSentence Reports (or othersuitable reports). A target of35% per annum should be set.
Public Protection Sentencing
3.32 The legislative basis for PSRs wassignificantly amended by the CriminalJustice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008where the risk of serious harm to thepublic was defined and a range ofdeterrent and public protectionsentences was introduced. The impacton PSRs is two fold – firstly pre-
sentence the analysis of risk of seriousharm defines the nature of the publicprotection sentence made. Secondly,post-sentence, the ParoleCommissioners, the NIPS and the DoJhave access to PSRs for recall, releaseand sentence planning purposes.
3.33 There are three new types of sentencesintroduced by the Criminal Justice(Northern Ireland) Order 2008, two ofwhich are public protection sentences(ECS and ICS) which had specificimplications for the writers of PSRs.
• Determinate Custodial Sentence- the sentence comprises a custodialterm and a term on licence. Thecustodial term shall not exceed onehalf of the term of the sentence.Upon completion of the custodialelement of the sentence the offenderwill be released on licence.8
• Extended Custodial Sentence(ECS) - the sentence is the aggregateof a custodial term and an extendedperiod where the offender is subjectto licence. The custodial term is onehalf of the period determined by thecourt as the appropriate custodialterm and the licence remains inforce until expiration of the wholesentence.
• Indeterminate CustodialSentence (ICS) - the court imposesa minimum period of custody. Theoffender is subject to licence untilcompletion of a qualifying period andthe Parole Commissioners direct thatthe licence may be revoked.9
8 A licensing panel working within the prison will dictate licence conditions.9 The Parole Commissioners impose licence conditions for both ECS and ICS offenders.
20
3.34 Probation Officers raised a number ofissues arising from the new sentencesdirectly or indirectly related to howthey write their PSRs. These include:
• the breach of licence conditionsproposed in the PSRs are no longerreferred to the court that imposedthe sentence;
• the Parole Commissioners nowconsider recalls using recall reportsalong with PSRs;
• the extended use of PSRs byprison-based Probation Officers, theResettlement Unit and OffenderManagement Unit; and
• clarity surrounding the relative rolesof the Offender Recall Unit and theParole Commissioners in recall cases.
Whilst stating that these were issuesraised by Probation Officers, Inspectorsafter discussions with Probation BoardManagement, felt that only the finalpoint gave rise to further considerationand sentence recalls are looked at infurther detail below.
3.35 The Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland)Order Article 28 states that in the caseof a:
‘prisoner who has been released onlicence… the Secretary of State may revoke(the) prisoner’s licence and recall (the)prisoner to prison:
a. if recommended to do so by the ParoleCommissioners; or
b. without such a recommendation if itappears to the Secretary of State thatit is expedient in the public interest torecall (the) prisoner before such arecommendation is practicable.’
3.36 The clauses in Article 28 give rise todefinitions of recall that have beenclassified as standard – conforming toclause (a) and emergency clause (b).In the case of a standard recall theprobation staff must submit a recallreport to the Parole Commissionerswhich is required to be reviewed by aParole Commissioner within 48 hoursof the recall. Necessarily theParole Commissioner will requiredocumentation to support the breachand request for recall including the PSR.In the instance where a recall is deemedemergency, the breach report andrequest for recall is forwarded to theOffender Recall Unit of the DoJ. TheOffender Recall Unit provides an out-of-hours facility for emergency recalls.Subsequently the recall request is sentto the Parole Commissioners for review.
3.37 On the face of it the process appearsclear cut10 but in practice there aresome issues surrounding the outworkingof these new arrangements. TheProbation Officer faced with a decisionto breach an offender is not oftenpresented with a simple clear cut case.Whilst there is a threshold of behaviourand actions that once crossed, signals abreach, this requires a professionaljudgement by the Probation Officer inconsultation with their Manager.
3.38 Similarly, the classification of a recallinto emergency or standard is not blackand white but lies within a spectrum.Serious behaviour intimating imminentrisk of harm to the public is easilyidentified as an emergency and at theother end, an offender remanded intocustody for a further offence is clearlynot an emergency.
10 A process flowchart of the recall process is given in Appendix 7.
21
3.39 Between these poles othercircumstances can arise. A commonenough situation quoted to Inspectorswas that of a Probation Officer on aFriday night faced with a report from ahostel that an offender had notreturned, or had done so but wassuspected of being under the influenceof alcohol. Strictly, it would not beclassified as an emergency and thusshould be referred to the ParoleCommissioners, potentially leaving thesituation unresolved until after theweekend. However, often a ProbationOfficer faced with this will believe therisk is too high and will want a moreimmediate recall. A small number ofcases fell into this grey area and led to amiddle category of cases unofficiallyknown as urgent cases.
3.40 As a consequence of these types ofcases the Parole Commissionersprovided the Probation Board with alist of Commissioners who may becontacted out-of-hours to deal withcases that warrant prompt action whilstnot being an actual emergency. This hasgone someway to resolve the problemand it is noted that the arrangementsare still a work in progress thereforethe DoJ, the Probation Board and theParole Commissioners should maintain adialogue to aid continuous improvement.
3.41 Allied to the classification of a recallrequest as urgent or emergency is thephysical process of accessing records viathe local office.
3.42 The threshold for standard andemergency recalls should be clearlydemarcated.
3.43 Area Managers should have remoteaccess to the Probation Board ITsystems for out-of-hours working.
Measuring Outcomes
3.44 The delivery of a PSR that is objective,evidence-based, reliable and providesuseful advice to a Sentencer, whilstmeeting the Core Standards is adjudgedto have met the criteria for delivery of asuccessful report. The internal audits,performance measures and gatekeepingreviews contribute to the maintenanceof the quality standards and Sentencers’surveys provide a measure (albeit fairlysubjective) of user satisfaction.
3.45 In a perverse way the value of PSRs ishighlighted in cases where they are notprepared. Where a sentence is timeserved on remand a prisoner may bereleased from custody into supervisionwithout a PSR. In these instancesProbation Officers and Licensing andSentence Planners were unanimous indescribing the difficulty in assigninglicence conditions, identifyingprogrammes and gaining a positiveengagement with the offender.
3.46 The preponderance of these measuresare weighted towards assessment againstdefined quality standards and deliverytargets, which are important but do notmeasure wider outcomes. The practicein England and Wales is to measure therelative concordance of sentencesproposed in court reports with theactual sentences awarded. The ideabeing that relevance of a PSR to asentence decision is demonstrated byhow often the Sentencers and the PSRagree. The figures up to 31 March 2010presented by National Offender
22
The Probation Board should gatherinformation on the outcomes ofcases where Pre-Sentence Reportsare provided to identify possibleindicators of a correlation betweenthe sentences and the optionsoutlined in the report.
3.49 In Northern Ireland there is nopresumption to use court reports toinfluence the decisions of Sentencerstowards non-custodial sentences. Asdescribed earlier the Core Standardslist the virtues of a good report as:
• relevance;• neutrality;• clarity;• impartiality;• evidenced evaluation;• avoidance of moral judgement;• assessment of character;• risk assessment; and• where appropriate, risk of serious
harm.
3.50 This is not the case in other jurisdictionswhere the outcomes of pre-sentencereporting extends into the realm ofinfluencing the Sentencer in a particulardirection. This ranges from a policy aimthat court reports will influenceSentencers towards non-custodialdisposals to legislation, where thepresumption is that community servicewill be awarded where short custodialsentences are considered.
3.51 A recent four-year study in Scotlandpostulated that some of the generalvirtues of PSRs (neutrality, impartiality)appeared to collide with others(relevance, risk assessment) concludingthat a good report is relevant to the
Management Service indicate thefollowing levels of concordance:
• 89% for custodial sentences;• 70% for community sentences; and• 53% for suspended sentence orders.
3.47 The probation services in England andWales measure the concordancebetween the recommended sentence inthe PSR and that made by the court.The concordance rates quoted range forjust over 50% for suspended sentenceorders to over 90% for custodialsentences. They also quote lack ofconcordance. Recent figures for 2009-10 quoted by the England and WalesProbation Service11 showed that on 53occasions, the PSR indicated a custodialsentence but the sentence outcome wasan absolute/conditional discharge, and in79 cases where the PSR indicated a fine,the outcome was custody. This is awide disparity between the ProbationOfficer’s assessment and that of theSentencer and provides the basis forsome more detailed analysis.
3.48 In Northern Ireland writers of PSRs donot make a single recommendationgiving preference to one sentence versusanother but rather outline a range ofappropriate sentencing options.Measuring concordance rates would beproblematic and probably misleading ifcomparisons with England and Waleswere made. Even so there is merit ingathering information regarding theoutcomes of cases where PSRs wereprovided to identify possible indicatorsof a correlation between the sentencesand the options outlined in the PSR. Thiscould be used for internal analysis andcontribute to training and development.
11 Probation statistics quarterly brief, January to March 2010; England and Wales - Table 11.
23
sentence when it encourages Sentencersto award particular disposals12. Thereport also looked at the developmentof sentencing policy and how that isinfluenced by pre-sentence reportingconcluding that:
‘Policy development has been predicated onthe view that higher quality (pre-sentence)reports will help to ‘sell’ communitypenalties to the principal consumers ofsuch reports (judges).’
3.52 This general policy drive has culminatedin The Scottish Executive legislating fora presumption against custody of threemonths or less (Criminal Justice andLicensing (Scotland) Act 2010). In thecontext of PSRs this policy directiveforms the basis for a specific outcomemeasure, and the reports will be aprimary vehicle to condition opinionand influence action, rather than merelyprovide information.
3.53 The Minister of Justice has pledged to amajor reshaping of the criminal justicesystem in Northern Ireland and centralto the reforms is the development of aReducing Offending Strategy, which aimsto reshape fundamentally our approachto tackling the factors leading peopleinto the criminal justice system and theobstacles which hinder them fromgetting back out of it.
3.54 Diversion from the justice system isalready recognised in proposals in theJustice (Northern Ireland) Bill 2011 andcommunity restorative justice schemes.A major driver in the sentencinginitiatives is the data indicating thatcommunity disposals are more
12 The Pursuit of ‘Quality’ in Pre-Sentence Reports,Tata et al Brit. J. Criminol. (2008) 48, 835-855
successful than short custody sentencesin reducing re-offending by adultsconvicted of less serious offences.This coupled with a resultant reductionin the prisoner population makecommunity-based disposal sentencesa viable alternative to custody.
3.55 Reconviction research published bythe Northern Ireland Office in April2008 showed that seven in 10 peoplecommencing supervision by theProbation Board during 2004 were notreconvicted within two years. For thosecompleting unpaid work, three in everyfour people were not reconvicted. Ananalysis of reconviction rates in respectof people given a community-basedcourt disposal during 2004 and releasedfrom custody in that year is given below.
AdultTwo -Year Reconviction Rates
Disposal Reconviction Rate
Combination Order 43%
Community Service Order 25%
Probation Order 32%
Community Supervision 31%
Custody Probation Order 38%
Immediate Custody 48%
3.56 The Minister of Justice has issued aconsultation on a review of communitysentences. The consultation paperhighlights the level of communitysentencing is lower than expected withresultant higher levels of custodysentences. As the consultation paperstates this is despite the fact ‘statistics
show that community sentences do impacton re-offending. The one year re-offendingrate for adult offenders (18+) sentenced tocommunity disposals in 2007 is as follows:
Community Service Order 23.5%Probation Order 24.4%Combination Order 34.0%(based on small numbers)
The one year re-offending rate for adultoffenders discharged from custody, havingserved a sentence of six months or less, is40.2%.’
The consultation paper concludes:
‘It would appear that community disposalsare more effective than custody at tacklingre-offending in adults convicted for lessserious offences.’
3.57 A move to increase communitysentencing, be it persuasive orpresumptive, could potentially influencethe role of the PSRs. It is worth notinghere the view of the Probation Boardthat PSRs are of value in assisting thecourt in determining the most suitablemethod of dealing with an offender.It remains the role for judges to decidethe most suitable disposals for anoffender considering the nature andseriousness of their offending.
24
Appendices
2Section
25
26
An inspection of Pre-Sentence Reports
Background
Article 2(2) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 is the legislative authorityfor providing a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) to a court and now almost 6,000 PSRs are preparedin Northern Ireland every year. In 2000, the Probation Board Northern Ireland (PBNI) agreedinterim standards for probation practice with the Northern Ireland Office. These interimstandards covered, inter alia, the preparation of PSRs and following implementation on 1November 2000 became known as the Core Standards. At that time it was also agreed that overtime the interim standards would be subject to review and revised to give a comprehensive setof Northern Ireland Standards for the assessment, management and supervision by the ProbationBoard of all offenders subject to Community Sentences, Custody Probation Orders, StatutoryLicences as well as the provision of reports to the Northern Ireland Courts and TribunalsService (NICTS) and The Parole (formerly the Life Sentence Review) Commissioners. TheseStandards were implemented in the Probation Board from 1 September 2006.
To ensure continued applicability of organisational standards, in particular in relation to theimplementation of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, the Probation Boardhave recently revised and updated specific sections of the Standards. Interim standards forPSRs were implemented in 2009 and revised guidance issued to staff. This took into account:
• additions and changes to criminal justice and related legislation;• increasing demands for protection of the public from crime and its effects (Criminal Justice
(Northern Ireland) Order 2008);• lessons learned from application of the Standards to daily practice;• the outcomes of monitoring practice and periodic internal audits; and• recommendations which reflect the findings of successive external reviews and inspections.
Within the Standards, there is a requirement for Probation Officers to self-regulate their ownpractice, and for Area and Senior Managers to quality assure work undertaken. This frameworkof review and feedback provides a mechanism to implement changes and improvements reflectingthe views of practitioners, Sentencers and other users.
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference
Aims and Objectives
This inspection aims to assess the extent to which the Probation Board implements its legislativemandate, meets the Northern Ireland key standards and assesses and meets the needs of usersof PSRs.
Specific areas will be:
• a review of the effectiveness of systems and processes to maintain and improve performancein accordance with standards, maintain quality and ensure consistency across the ProbationBoard;
• how the Probation Board communicates with Sentencers and other users of PSRs and meetstheir developing needs;
• the management of the PSR process – resourcing, staff deployment and training, internalmonitoring, quality assurance, audit, timescales for starting/completing reports;
• how the Probation Board is meeting the additional requirements of the Criminal JusticeOrder 2008 and ensuring consistency across Northern Ireland;
• the work of the Case Management Group on avoidable delay and the delivery of reports inshorter timescales; and
• how the Probation Board seeks to continuously develop its practice requirements andstaff skills.
In general terms the inspection will focus on the three main elements of CJI’s framework andhow they apply to PSRs. These areas are strategy and governance, delivery and outcomes.
During the fieldwork there will be an opportunity for staff, Sentencers and otherusers/stakeholders to surface issues surrounding the implementation of the 2009 Standards,the quality and timeliness of PSRs provided by the Probation Board, and any other issues asappropriate.
In light of findings, the inspection report will make recommendations.
Methodology
1. Background reading - existing legislation, policies, procedures, Core Standards, servicerequirements relevant to the Probation Board and other papers.
2. Discussions with the Probation Board to set Terms of Reference, understand the role of PSRsand SSRs and identify the key issues.
3. Data analysis covering period April 2007 – to most recent: the Probation Board data regardingPSRs, trends across courts and offences, compliance and breach rates of orders supervised,internal audit and monitoring reports, costs, volume data.
4. Sample PSRs and SSRs, internal quality audits, evidence of continuous improvement and userfeedback.
27
28
5. Structured interviews/questionnaires/focus groups of practitioners and Managers, with:
• relevant Probation Board staff from Belfast and rural areas;• defence and prosecution representatives; and• Sentencers: Crown and Magistrates’ Courts.
6. Analysis of fieldwork and drafting of report.
Process and Outcomes of the Inspection
The inspection will be led by Stephen Dolan and Tom McGonigle. It will be carried out inaccordance with the principles set out in the CJI Operational Guidelines for Inspection.
A draft report will be made available to the Probation Board for factual accuracy check and thefinal report will be a published document. The Probation Board will be asked to produce anAction Plan in response to the inspection recommendations and a follow-up inspection will bescheduled by CJI to assess progress against the Action Plan.
Proposed CJI Schedule
Scoping
Research
Fieldwork
Analysis
Writing up report
Publication
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
�
29
Appendix 2:Initial Assessment Process for Pre-Sentence Reports
PSRPBNIInitialRMMAssessmentContactA
lloca
tion
Gat
e-ke
epin
gre
quir
emen
t
Def
enda
ntco
ntac
ted
Inte
rvie
ws
unde
r18
offe
rto
pare
nts/
guar
dian
Shar
ePS
Rpr
e-co
urt
Rec
ord
cont
acts
onPB
NI
case
man
agem
ent
syst
em
Ris
kof
Seri
ous
Har
m
Ros
hva
lidat
edby
Are
aM
anag
erPO
***
conv
enes
RM
M**
**
Ensu
rePB
NI
RM
Mis
orga
nise
d.Fo
rm
urde
ran
dsp
ecifi
edof
fenc
esin
itial
RM
Mat
PSR
stag
e
Prep
are
and
circ
ulat
esh
ort
repo
rtin
adva
nce
ofm
eetin
g
Ensu
reA
CE,
RA
1on
PBN
ICas
eM
anag
emen
tSy
stem
Dec
isio
nsof
Initi
alR
MM
Rec
ord
and
com
mun
icat
eIn
itial
RM
Mde
cisi
ons
Incl
ude
RM
Mde
cisi
ons
inPS
R
PSR
wri
tten
incl
udin
gw
ork
plan
whe
reap
prop
riat
e
Gat
ekee
ping
ofPS
R
Shar
ePS
Rin
clud
ing
wor
kpl
anw
ithde
fend
ant
Com
plet
edPS
Rto
cour
t
Acc
ess
and
revi
ewdo
cum
enta
tion
With
Are
am
anag
erto
valid
ate
ROSH
RA
1**
com
plet
edif
trig
gere
dby
filte
r
Com
plet
eA
CE
+RO
SH*
filte
r
Referral
*RO
SH-
Ris
kof
Seri
ous
Har
m**
RA
1-
Ris
kA
sses
smen
t1
***
PO-
Prob
atio
nO
ffice
r**
**R
MM
-R
isk
Man
agem
ent
Mee
ting
30
Appendix 3: Public Protection Sentences
A Determinate Custodial Sentence requires an offender to serve a period of imprisonmentfollowed by a period of supervision in the community. The court will specify the length of bothcustody and community supervision at sentencing. This will be the standard determinatesentence for all offenders, and has been available to the courts from 1 April 2009.
An Extended Custodial Sentence may be given at court if the offender has been convicted onindictment of a specified offence, where a life sentence or Indeterminate Custodial Sentence isnot appropriate. The court must be of the opinion that there is a significant risk that the offenderwill re-offend and that such re-offending is likely to cause serious harm to members of the public.The court will specify the maximum length of custody and length of time to be served on licenceinto the community. Halfway through the custodial element of their sentence offenders mayapply to the Parole Commissioners for early release.
An Indeterminate Custodial Sentence may be given at court if the offender has beenconvicted on indictment of a specified offence, where a life sentence is not appropriate but anExtended Custodial Sentence is not sufficient. The court must be of the opinion that there is asignificant risk that the offender will re-offend and that such re-offending is likely to cause seriousharm to members of the public. The court will specify the maximum length of custody that anoffended must serve before being released on licence into the community. Offenders may remainon licence for the rest of their natural lives. On reaching a tariff date, offenders may apply to theParole Commissioners for early release.
31
Appendix4:RiskofSeriousHarmProcedures
32
Location AuthorTeam 2009-10
Assessment Unit 1,950Inspire Project 38NBSA Antrim Road 151NBSA Larne 280
Belfast PYOP 143SENDA N’ards 47SENDA N’ards Road 34SENDA Ormeau Road 90West Belfast A’town Road 115West Belfast Lisburn 76
Total 2,924
Hydebank Wood 7Prisons Maghaberry 3
Magilligan 2
Total 12
Armagh 207Dungannon 102Magherafelt 324Antrim 154Ballymena 234
Rural Coleraine 242Crawford Square 335Limavady Road 275Newry 298Portadown 352Enniskillen 152Omagh 220Other 15
Total 2,910
Intensive Supervision Unit 107Specialist Public Protection Team 13
Total 120
Total 5,966
Appendix 5:Pre-Sentence Reports by Probation Board office
33
Appendix 6: Probation Board for NorthernIreland Action Plan
Rec
Recommendation
Accepted
AgreedAction
No
byPBNI?
1T
hePr
obat
ion
Boar
dsh
ould
usef
ully
disc
uss
with
YTo
have
inpl
ace
agre
edm
echa
nism
sfo
rth
esh
arin
gof
thir
dpa
rty
serv
ice
prov
ider
sho
wbe
stto
deliv
erin
form
atio
nre
leva
ntfr
omPS
Rs
with
thir
dpa
rty
serv
ice
rele
vant
data
from
Pre-
Sent
ence
Rep
orts
prov
ider
sby
Dec
embe
r20
11.
The
Prob
atio
nBo
ard
shou
ldsu
rvey
othe
rus
ers
ofTo
com
plet
ea
Paro
leC
omm
issi
oner
ssu
rvey
rega
rdin
gse
rvic
esPr
e-Se
nten
ceR
epor
tsin
conj
unct
ion
with
the
prov
ided
byPB
NIb
yM
arch
2012
.PB
NIw
ould
not
incl
ude
othe
rSe
nten
cer
surv
eyPa
rtia
llyus
ers
ofPS
Rs
(pro
secu
tors
and
pris
onau
thor
ities
)in
such
surv
eys.
2T
hePr
obat
ion
Boar
dsh
ould
rest
ate
the
Cor
eY
Toin
clud
eta
rget
sfo
rtim
ely
prov
isio
nof
PSR
sin
2011
-14
PBN
ISt
anda
rds
obje
ctiv
esas
deliv
erin
gth
ePr
e-Se
nten
ceC
orpo
rate
Plan
and
2011
-12
PBN
IBus
ines
sPl
anby
June
2011
.R
epor
tto
cour
ton
time
(tar
get
of95
-100
%sh
ould
bese
t)
3T
hePr
obat
ion
Boar
dne
edto
iden
tify
the
spec
ific
reas
ons
YTo
iden
tify
reas
ons
for
poor
upta
keof
SSR
sby
Mar
ch20
12.
for
poor
upta
keof
Spec
ific
Sent
ence
Rep
orts
and
ifne
cess
ary
deve
lop
repo
rts
that
mee
tth
ere
quir
emen
tsof
Sent
ence
rsbu
tar
ele
ssre
sour
cein
tens
ive.
4T
hePr
obat
ion
Boar
dsh
ould
incr
ease
the
usag
eof
YTo
incr
ease
the
prop
ortio
nof
SSR
spr
ovid
edto
cour
tsto
35%
Spec
ific
Sent
ence
Rep
orts
(or
othe
rsu
itabl
ere
port
s).
over
the
next
two
busi
ness
year
s.A
targ
etof
35%
per
annu
msh
ould
bese
t
5T
heth
resh
old
forstandard
andem
ergency
reca
llssh
ould
YTo
agre
ew
ithPa
role
Com
mis
sion
ers
and
Offe
nder
Rec
all
Uni
tth
ebe
clea
rly
dem
arca
ted
thre
shol
dsfo
rst
anda
rdan
dem
erge
ncy
reca
llsby
Sept
embe
r20
11.
6A
rea
Man
ager
ssh
ould
have
rem
ote
acce
ssto
the
YTo
com
plet
ea
pilo
tof
rem
ote
secu
reac
cess
toPB
NII
Tsy
stem
sPr
obat
ion
Boar
dsy
stem
sfo
rou
tof
hour
sw
orki
ngou
tof
hour
sby
Mar
ch20
12.
7T
hePr
obat
ion
Boar
dsh
ould
gath
erin
form
atio
non
the
YTo
bein
corp
orat
edin
toth
esp
ecifi
catio
nfo
rth
ene
wca
seou
tcom
esof
case
sw
here
Pre-
Sent
ence
Rep
orts
are
man
agem
ent
syst
em.
prov
ided
toid
entif
ypo
ssib
lein
dica
tors
ofa
corr
elat
ion
betw
een
the
sent
ence
san
dth
eop
tions
outl
ined
inth
ere
port
.
34
Appendix 7: Recall Process FlowchartC
onsi
der
licen
ceva
riat
ion
war
ning
orO
RU
notif
icat
ion
Offe
nder
supe
rvis
edby
PBN
I
Offe
nder
brea
ches
licen
ceco
nditi
ons
OR
Uis
sue
notic
eto
PCN
Ito
retu
rnof
fend
erto
jail
Rev
iew
byPC
NIp
anel
Rec
all
doss
ier
prov
ided
tosi
ngle
PCN
Ico
mm
issi
oner
Offe
nder
retu
rns
tosu
perv
isio
n
Rev
iew
byPC
NIp
anel
OR
Uis
sue
notic
eto
PSN
Ito
retu
rnof
fend
erto
jail
Rec
all
tocu
stod
y?Em
erge
ncy
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rec
omm
end
reca
ll?
35
36
Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved
First published in Northern Ireland in June 2011 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND
14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA
www.cjini.org
ISBN 978-1-905283-61-3
Typeset in Gill SansPrinted in Northern Ireland by Commercial Graphics Limited
Designed by Page Setup