Enforcing Community Orders
| Date | 01 March 1997 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059704400107 |
| Published date | 01 March 1997 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
interval as an incentive to encourage the
outstanding hours to be completed, on
the basis that if the offender complied in
the meantime breach proceedings would
be withdrawn.
Because of the time and cost
involved in breaching offenders,
Enforcing
magistrates were in favour of such
informal methods in certain
Community Orders
circumstances, typically where an
offender has completed most of the order
To examine the methods used to ensure
but then gets ’demob happy’. Two
compliance with community orders, the
magistrates considered that if breach
circumstances in which offenders are
proceedings were brought to court near
breached and how the breach process
the end of a probation order, it was
functions, Home Office researchers
normal practice to revoke the order
interviewed 89 staff in five Probation
without re-sentencing.
Areas between September 1994 and
December 1995, together with 19
Timekeeping: Exercise of Discretion
magistrates and 31 police officers. The
Failures to attend on time were dealt with
disparity of practice and experience
more rigorously by CS officers than by
between Areas emerges clearly,
probation order supervisors. In four
particularly in the enforcement of
Areas, CS workers were generally
probation orders. Sound conclusions of
allowed to be between 10 and 15 minutes
general worth are thus difficult to extract
late without a failure to attend being
but the following provides some flavour
recorded. In the fifth Area, the amount of
of the picture of diversity, particularly
leeway for lateness was left to the
the difference of approach between
discretion of the supervisor. Probation
probation officers and CS staff.
officers placed less emphasis on
punctuality, and in all five Areas
Strategies to Address Failures to Comply
supervisors would accept an offender’s
without Prosecution If probationers
attendance on a subsequent day without
started to miss appointments, supervising
recording a failure.
officers in all five Areas were inclined to
require them to report more frequently,
Home Visits Neither probation officers
apparently on the basis that this would
nor CS officers used home visits as a
increase the chances of their fulfilling
routine check in cases where breach
their National Standard attendance
action was being considered, though CS
expectations. However, as some
officers sometimes supported the idea of
respondents pointed out, this strategy
spot check visits to the homes of
also seems to increase probationers’
offenders who claimed to be unable to
chances of failing to comply!
undertake CS because of work
CS officers preferred to send
commitments. In one Area, with a major
offenders home for ’messing about’ and
urban responsibility, a full-time ’follow
cancelling hours worked rather than
up’ PSO (probation service officer) was
breach them, if ’no-one was hurt and
employed to visit all probationers who
nothing was damaged’. Offenders would
failed to keep appointments. The follow
customarily be allowed up to three
up officer had built up a level of
warnings per session before being sent
investigative expertise, drawing on
home for troublesome behaviour. If
previous experience as a police
breach action was initiated, the court date
constable, in establishing if a probationer
was timed to occur after a sufficient
had moved without notifying change of
39
address or checking if a person was
Employers’ Letters Three Areas had
genuinely a hospital in-patient as
experienced problems where relatives or
claimed.
friends who ran businesses had been
supplying letters to cover offenders’
Combination Orders CS officers
absences without genuinely employing
generally informed POs of any failure to
them. Forged letters were also being
comply with the CS component but the
submitted using headed blank notepaper
reverse was seldom true. CS staff in four
from legitimate businesses. These were
Areas complained that probation officers
often difficult to disprove and some
frequently allowed undue leeway to
offices preferred to take informal steps to
offenders on combination orders (COs),
warn offenders that they had been
thus resulting in discrepancies in
rumbled and that any repetition would
...
To continue reading
Request your trial