How Far Should You Go?
| Author | F.G. Hails |
| Published date | 01 December 1956 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455055600800406 |
| Date | 01 December 1956 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
60
now - it
has
got
to
such
a
pitch
that
prison
is
the
only
thing
now - why
in
Heaven’s
name
should
he
not
be
allowed
to
mention
it?
&dquo; To
say
it
is
un-British
or
not
right
or
not
according
to
law
appears
to
me
to
be
nonsense.
It
is
perfectly
right
that
he
should
be
able
to
tell
you
the
position
in
his
report,
and
as
you
are
asking
for
his
opinion
it
is
right
that
he
should
give
his
full
and
frank
opinion.
&dquo;
If
he
says
his
opinion
is
that
prison
is
the
only
thing,
it
may
be
you
will
differ
from
that;
the
decision
is
yours;
you
are
at
perfect
liberty
to
accept
or
disregard
his
opinion.
You
are
at
liberty
to
take
into
account
what
he
says
and
say:
’Although
the
probation
officer
thinks
this
is
a
case
for
imprisonment
we
will
give
the
boy
one
more
chance’,
or
it
may
be
you
will
say:
’We
think
he
is
quite
right
and
we
shall
send
the
man
to
prison’.
&dquo;
I
do
not
want
it
to
go
out
or
for
you
to
be
under
the
impression
that
if
you
do
use
the
powers
of
Section
43
which
the
Criminal
Justice
Act
clearly
contemplates
you
should
have
the
right
to
do,
that
is
to
say
getting
the
opinion
of
the
probation
officer
for
your
help
and
assist-
ance,
that
if
he
recommends
a
particular
course
it
is
to
be
said
he
is
going
outside
his
functions
or
that
he
has
done
something
he
should
not
have
done
because
that
is
the
very
thing
you
have
asked
him
to
do,
and
unless
you
get
a
full
and
frank
opinion
from
him,
the
opinion
is
worthless.&dquo;
The
Clerk
to
one
Bench
of
Justices
has
expressed
an
opinion
contrary
to
our
own,
and
his
notes
follow.
There
we
must
leave
the
matter.
We
realise
that
the
comments
made
in
the
Association’s
name
were
not
ap-
proved
of
by
all
its
members
and
the
issues
raised
may
well
be
worth
further
debate,
to
which
the
columns
of
PROBATION
can
be
open.
FRANK
DAWTRY,
HOW
FAR
SHOULD
YOU
GO?
By
F.
G.
HAILS,
(Solicitor,
Clerk
to
the
Dartford
Justices.)
I WAS
rather
pleased
to
read
in
the
Tinies
of
September
-~-
12th
1956,
certain
remarks
of
Mr.
C. L.
Henderson,
Q.C.,
the
learned
chairman
of
the
Appeal
Committee
of
the
Bedfordshire
Quarter
Sessions.
The
comments
will
bear
verbatim
quotation,
but
first
we
must
refer
to
the
words
which
aroused
the
Chairman’s
ire:
the
report,
on
a
man
aged
25,
is
alleged
to
have
contained
the
following:
&dquo;Un-
less
the
accused
can
be
compelled
to
accept
rehabilitation
at
some
training
centre
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
a
term
of
imprisonment
is
the
only
alternative
to
bring
him
to
his
senses&dquo;.
Of
this,
the
learned
chairman
had
to
say:
&dquo;What
justification
is
there
for
such
an
observation
from
a
proba-
tion
officer?
And
that
report
was
put
before
the
magistrates
behind
the
back
of
the
prisoner.
This
is
not
the
first
time
that
this
has
happened&dquo;.
I
am
concerned
as
to
how
a
probation
officer’s
report
on
an
adult
could
reach
a
bench
’behind
a
prisoner’s
back’:
the
Criminal
Justice
Act,
1948,
s.
43,
provides
that
if
a.
report
to
an
adult
court
is
written
it
shall
be
served
upon
the
subject:
if
it
is
oral
it
must
of
course
be
given
in
his
presence,
otherwise
the
decision
of
the
court
would
be
upset
by
the
Divisional
Court:
R.
-
v.
-
Bodmin,
J.J.,
ex
parte
McEwen
[(1947)
1
All
E.
R.
109].
I
am
not
so
surprised
that
a
report
in
the
case
of
a
juvenile
should
not
reach
the
ears
of
those
most
intimately
concerned.
The
Summary
Jurisdiction
(Children
and
Young
Persons)
Rules
1933
S.R.&O.
No.
819/L23,
rule
II
(iv)
provide
that
the
written
report
of
a
probation
officer,
local
authority,
or
registered
medical
practitioner
may
be
received
by
the
court,
and
considered,
without
being
read
aloud
if
the
juvenile
is
told
the
substance
of
any
part
of
the
report
bearing
on
his
character
or
conduct
which
the
court
con-
siders
material
to
its
decision,
that
the
parent
or
guardian,
if
present,
shall
likewise
be
told
the
material
part
and
which
has
reference
to
his
character
or
conduct,
or
to
the
character,
conduct,
home
surroundings
’or
health’
of
the
juvenile,
and
with
the
further
proviso
enabling
the
juvenile
or
his
parent
or
guardian
to
be
given
a
chance
of
disputing
the
report.
Unhappily
this
provision
is
too
often
read
as
mandatory
and
not
merely
permissive:
ideally
the
reports
should
contain
nothing
which
is
not
material,
and
all
con-
cerned,
probation
officers
in
particular,
should
be
careful
to
avoid
all
reference
to
extraneous
matters.
After
all,
if
Tom
Jones
is
summoned
for
stealing
a
bicycle
it
may
be
very
interesting
to
know
that
when
she
was
fifteen
years
old
his
mother
was
seen
by
Dr.
Flugelwasser,
the
pioneer
English
psychiatrist,
or
that
his
father
is
suspected
by
the
neighbours
of
taking
the
factory
canteen
supervisor
to
the
pictures
twice
a
week,
but
unless
Tom
can
be
shewn
to
have
been
affected
by
these
things
they
are
better
left
out
of
the
report.
Indeed,
it
is
arguable
from
the
terms
of the
rule
we
have
quoted
whether
a
written
report
is
receivable
when
the
maker
is
present
in
court.
But
at
present
most
probation
officers
have
a
firm
impression
that
a
report
may
be
suppressed
in
the
interest
of
a
good
‘oflicer/probationer
relationship’,
and
that
once
a
court
forms
the
habit
of
receiving
reports
without
apprising
the
subject
of the
con-
tents,
then
the
recital
of
marital
malice,
the
dragging
of
skeletons
from
long-locked
cupboards,
and
a
general
dabble
in
mere
gossip,
easily
become
common
form.
But
before
any
of
these
horrors
are
put
into
a
report,
the
officer
should
consider
if
they
have
in
any
way
affected
the
conduct
of
the
person
whose
case
the
court
is
considering.
Then
I
come
to
the
question
of
recommendation
as
to
the
method
of
treatment,
and
I
would
say
without
mincing
words
that
this
is
not
the
concern
of
a
probation
officer:
his
task
is
to
present
such
facts
as
he
finds,
and
as
are
material.
I
do
not
think
that
he
should
go
any
further
in
suggesting
how
the
case
should
be
dealt
with
than
by
saying,
if
such
be
the
case:
’I
do
not
think
that
I
could
help
the
defendant
by
supervising
him’.
This
is
all:
it
is
not
the
task
of
a
probation
officer
to
suggest
what
the
court
should
do:
if
the
court
wants
the
probation
officer
to
find
a
home
or
hostel
it
will
ask
him
to
do
so,
and
an
honest
confession
of
inability
is
a
thousand
times
better
than
a
thousand
pious
hopes.
To continue reading
Request your trial