probation forum
| DOI | 10.1177/026455056501100108 |
| Date | 01 March 1965 |
| Author | Frank Dawtry |
| Published date | 01 March 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
23
probation
forum
THE
LIBERTY
OF
THE
SUBJECT
A
funny
thing
happens
to
letters
on
their
way
to
the
r~oRUn~t -
they
get
directed
to
Justice
of
the
Peace.
Tlre
Magistrate.
Case
Conference
and
the
Ohserver.
This
is
all
very
healthy,
but
we
ahould
be
happy
if
probation
ollicers
would
also
discuss
the
topics
of
interest
to
their
profession
through
this
IO)RUM.
This
observation
refers
particularly
to
the
matter
of
the
Association’s
concern
for
the
preservation
of
the
liberty
of
the
individual
against
the
State.
This
concern
ought
not,
on
our
opinion,
to
be
relaxed
even
where
the
humblest
or
youngest
citizen
is
concerned,
and
it
is
particularly
important
to
re-state
our
position
at
a
time
when
proposals
are
afoot
which
would
allow
interference
with
the
liberty
of
children
and
young
persons
by
officials
or
non-judicial
bodies.
The
Ingleby
Committee
asserted
its
belief
in
the
retention
of
the
basic
principle:
&dquo;... that
specific
and
definable
matters
must
be
alleged
and
that
there
should
be
no
power
to
intervene
until
those
allegations
have been
adequately
proved.
We
think
that
the
maintenance
of
this
basis
is
essential
if
State
intervention
is
to
be
fitted
into
our
general
system
of
government
and
to
be
acceptable
to
the
community.&dquo;
The
Kilbrandon
Committee
on
the
other
hand
proposes
that
children
up
to
the
age
of
sixteen
might
be
dealt
with
by
lay
panels,
advised
by
legally
qualified
officials,
and
that
a
local
education
authority
may
retain
supervision
over
the
life
of
a
cbild
until
it
reaches
that
age:
recourse
to
a
legal
tribunal
is
to
be
available
only
if
parents
or
child
raise
objections
to
actions
taken
by
the
lay
panel
and/or
the
officials.
Reviewing
these
proposals
in
PROBATION.
June
1964,
at
page
152,
Mr.
Jarvis
(Vice-Chairman
of
the
Association)
referred
to
their
superficial
attractiveness
but
said:
&dquo;Nevertheless,
involving
as
they
do
an
erosion
of
the
rule
of
law,
an
extension
of
administrative
autocracy
and
the
destruction
of
existing
services,
their
implementation
would
in
my
view
be
disastrous.&dquo;
and
he
added
later:
&dquo;Whatever
machinery
for
appeals
may
be
added
to
give
a
veneer
of
legality
to
administrative
dictatorship,
the
basic
conception
is
quite
alien
to
our
’
mode
of
thought.&dquo;
The
Labour
Party
Study
Group
has
also
produced
a
scheme
for
a
family
service
whose
&dquo;advice
and
help&dquo;
to
families
might
lead
to
the
removal
of
a
child
from
home
for
special
training.
The
case
would
come
before
a
court
only
where
the
agreement
of
the
parents
is
not
obtained.
Our
editorial
comment
on
this
(PROBATION,
September,
1964,
page
161)
referred
to
this
usurpation
of
the
function
of
the
judiciary
by
the
administration.
These
references
are
quoted
because
they
represent
the
view
of
the
Association
which
had
been
expressed
very
firrnly
in
its
evidence
to
the
Ingleby
and
Kilbrandon
Committees.
These
comments
provoked
no
rejoinder
from
any
reader.
Consequently,
as
such
matters
are
now
under
discussion
in
the
field
ot
practical
politics,
we
were
impressed
by
the
appropriate
re-statement
by
Lord
Devlin
in
the
Ohserver
on
13th
December,
1964,
of
the
basic
principle
involved,
and
we
wrote
to
that
newspaper
to
say:
&dquo;The
Kilbrandon
Committee
on
Children
and
Young
Persons
in
Scotland,
recommended
the
replacement
of
juvenile
courts
by
panels
of
lay
people
To continue reading
Request your trial