Probation Forum
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057902600308 |
| Published date | 01 September 1979 |
| Date | 01 September 1979 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
98
PROBATION
FORUM
THANKS ... !
I
We
refer
to
two
recent
articles
in
PROBATION
JOURNAL-&dquo;SenfenCCd
to
Social
~York?&dquo;
(Vol
25,
No
4,
December
1978)
and
&dquo;Sentenced
to
Surveillance?&dquo;
(Vol
26,
No
1,
March
1979).
A
word
of
thanks
is
due
to
the
authors
of
both
articles..
They
provoked
thought
and
discussion
recently
in
a
group
of
probation
staff
of
all
grades
in
SE
Staffordshire.
It
seemed
to
us
that
we
were
being
asked
by
1’vfalcolm
Bryant
et
al
to
consider
the
adoption
of
a
&dquo;justice&dquo;
model
of
probation
order,
perhaps
as
a
panic
reaction
to
public
opinion,
in
preference
to
the
traditional
model
with
its
individual
discretionary
approach.
It
was
recognised
that
to
move
too
far
from
present
practice
might
influence
in
a
negative
sense
the
concept
of
individual
sentencing,
in
which
there
is
still
hopefully
a
balance
between
punishment
and
rehabilitation.
It
was
also
felt
quite
strongly
that
100
years
of
probation
experience
should
not
be
set
at
naught
and
that
there
already
exists
considerable
flexibility
and
opportunity
for
further
developmental
thinking.
Debate
was
facilitated
by
contributions
from
David
Mathieson
and
David
Millard,
and
a
proposition,
that
the
model
proposed
by
Malcolm
Bryant
et
al
be
pursued,
was
ovenvhelmingly
rejected.
’
SE
STAFFS
PROBATION
STAFF
D1_FENDANTS
WITH
MENTAL
HEALTH
PROBLEMS
Section
60
of
the
Mental
Health
Act
1959
provides
that
if
a
criminal
court
is
satisfied,
on
receiving
the
written
or
oral
evidence
or
two
medical
practition-
ers
at
least
one
of
whom
must
be
approved
by
the
Secretary
of
State
as
being
of
sufficient
experience
to
make
a
report
for
this
purpose,
that
a
defendant
is
suffering
from
mental
illness,
subnormality,
severe
subnormality
disorder
or
psychopathic
disorder,
it
can
after
hearing
details
of
his
background
and
antecedents
commit
him
to
a
psychiatric
hospital
if
it
is
satisfied
that
he
did
the
act
complained
of
and
provided
also
it
is
satisfied
that that
is
the
most
appropriate
way
of
dealing
with
the defendant.
The
Act
also
provides
that
the
two
doctors
must
agree
on
the
form
of
mental
disorder
or
illness
from
which
the
defendant
is
suffering
although
practice
shows
that
this
requirement
is
not
always
strictly
followed
by
the
court.
On
the
face
of
it
then
the
requirements
for
making
an
order
are
not
unduly
rigorous
but
recent
experience
shows
that
the
biggest
obstacle
may
be
finding
a
hospital
that
is
able
to
accept
the
hapless
defendant.
Recently
I
was
instructed
to
act
for
a
young
man
who
was
charged
before
a
magistrates
court
with
criminal
damage;
the
brief
facts
being
that
he
had
broken
down
his
parents’
front
door
to
obtain
food
for
himself.
Upon
speaking
.to
the
police
officer
in
the
case
it
appeared
that
he
had
no
money
because
his
Social
Security
payments
had
been
suspended
and
his
parents
had had
to
ask
him
to
leave
because
of
violence
in
the
home
in
the
past.
At
the
initial
court
appearance,
the
police
officer
brought
to
the
magistrate’s
attention
the
defendant’s
history
of
mental
illness.
A
remand
was
therefore
made
in
custody
for
one
week
to
obtain
a
pre-trial
medical
report.
The
follow-
ing
week
the
medical
report
from
the
prison
requested
further
time.
A
further
remand
was
therefore
made
but
on
the
third
court
appearance,
a
request
was
To continue reading
Request your trial