In Court
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058403100210 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
71
IN
COURT
Serving
Community
Service
Orders
COOPER
V.
CHIEF
CONSTABLE
OF
LANCASHIRE
Preston
Crown
Court
(Criminal
Law
Review,
Februarv
1984)
The
defendant
had
failed
to
perform
any
work
or
keep
appointments
under
fus
community
service
order.
He
was
convicted
of
breach
and
appealed
on
grounds
that
he
had
not
been
served
with
a
copy
of
the
order
in
accordance
with
section
14(6)
PCCA
1973,
and
thus
had
not
been
subject
to
a
valid
order.
Decision :
Section
14(6)
required
the
order
to
be
served
subsequent
to
the
making
of
a
CS
order,
not
as
a
condition
precedent
to
the
making
of the
order
It
was
directory
only
rather
than
mandatory,
and
hence
the
order
had
been
valid
and
the
defendant
was
lawfully
held
in
breach
SERs
on
Young
Offenders
R.
v
MASSHEDER
Court
of
Appeal
(Crim
LR,
March
1984).
A
sixteen
year
old
with
one
previous
conviction
for
TWOC
was
convicted
of
arson.
At
Crown
Court,
no
SER
was
available,
partly
because
of
industrial
action
in
the
relevant
Social
Services
Department
and
partly
because
of
policy
not
to
prepare
reports
m
likely
’not
guilty’
cases
The
judge
refused
an
adjournment
for
a
report
and
sentenced
him
to
18
months
detention
under
s
53(2)
C and YP Act
1933,
saying
that
the offence
was ’beyond
anything
m
the
nature
of probation’
Decision
Having
regard
to
s 2
CJ
Act
1982,
the
matter
should
have
been
adjourned
and
a
report
obtained,
because
without
a
report
it
was
impossible
to
say
that
this
was
not
an
appropriate
case
for
a
supervision
order.
The judge
had
clearly
felt
that
a
report
was
necessary
and
so
this
case
was
not
within
s.2(3)
(which
allows
the
court
to
make
a
custodial
sentence
without
an
SER
when
it
considers
a
report
to
be
‘unnecessary’)
In the light
of
the
report
now
obtained,
a
2
year
supervision
order
was
substituted.
Comment
In
fact
the
requirement
m
s
2 to
obtam
an
SER
before
passmg
a
custodial
sentence
does
not
apply
to
a
detention
order
under
s
53(2),
but
that
apart,
this
is
an
important
decision
on
the
necessity
of
a
report
even
if
one
is
not
initially
available
The
implication
is
that
even
if
the
offence
is
a
senous
one
for
which
a
custodial
sentence
is
virtually
inevitable,
this
is
not
adequate
justification
for
avoiding
a
report
Youth
Custody
as
Training?
R.
v
HART
AND
HART-
Court
of
Appeal
(Cmn.
LR,
March
1984).
The
twin
defendants
aged
20
had
attempted
to
break
into
a
car
park
hut
They
had
previous
convictions,
including
for
minor
burglary.
They
received
2
years
youth
custody,
the
court
observing
that
they
were
m
need
of
’training
m
a
contained
environment’.
Decision
As
no
non-custodial
alternative
appeared
practicable,
a
custodial
sentence
was
necessary,
but
the
court
should
not
impose
sentences not
merited
by
the
offences
themselves.
In
the
light
of
their
records
and
the
minor
nature
of this
offence,
two
years
was
not appropriate,
and
12
months
was
sufficient.
Comment
This
decision
affirms
that
Youth
Custody,
unlike
Borstal,
should
be
governed
by
the
principle
of
proportionality
between
offence
and
sentence,
and
not
by
notions
of
the
long
term
mterests
and
needs
of
the
offender
Parole
Recall
R
V.
HOME
SECRETARY,
ex
parte
GUNNELL
Divisional
Court
(Cnm
LR,
March
1984)
A
life
prisoner
was
paroled
after
serving
over
fifteen
years,
but
was
recalled
two
years
later
because
of
his
suspect
behaviour.
He
was
given
oral
mformation
as
to
the
reason
for
recall,
and
the
parole
board
decided
not
to
recommend
his
immediate
release.
He
alleged
that the
authonties
had
not
adhered
to
the
rules
of
natural
justice,
and
that
he
should
have had
written
reasons
for
his
recall,
an
oral
heanng
before
the
parole
board,
with
legal
representation,
full
opportunity
for
cross-
examination,
and
access
to
the
reports
and
documents
available
to
the
board
Decision.
The
Court
confirmed
that
the
parole
board
performed
an
administrative,
not
judicial
function.
There
was
nothing
in
the
relevant
statute
requiring
written
reasons
or
an
oral
healing;
the
board
had
a
broad
discretion
in
the
way
it
considered
parole
and
was
not
obliged
to
disclose
any
documents
to
the
prisoner.
To continue reading
Request your trial