Return to Court
| Author | Jack Walkington,Jack Downie,Val Hope |
| Date | 01 September 1996 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455059604300319 |
| Published date | 01 September 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
178
LETTERS
Return
to
Court
Chris
White
(’Letters’,
PJ
June
1996)
seems
to
concentrate
in
his
identification
of
the
court
task
on
the
relationship
between
the
court
duty
officer
and
the
clerk.
This
is
obviously
important,
but
there
are
also
a
number
of
other
people
at
court
who
we
ought
to
be
addressing, ie
solicitors,
prosecutors,
police,
defendants
and,
probably
most
importantly,
sentencers.
If
we
leave
the
selection
of
what
may
be
important
to
us
to
the
discretion
of
the
clerk,
then
we
are
surrendering
one
of
the
pivotal
tasks
of
the
Probation
Service,
possibly
to
loud
cheers
from
the
Home
Office
and
to
our
own
management.
A
case
which
is
fairly
typical
of
our
need
to
be
in
court
arose
the
other
day.
A
simple
case
of
theft
(first
offence,
goods
recovered,
etc) led,
on
the
clerk’s
advice,
to
the
possibility
of
a
stand-down
report
and/
or
an
adjournment
for
a
full
pre-sentence
report.
In
the
event,
because
of
the
probation
officer’s
presence,
this
was
dealt
with
by
a
conditional
discharge,
without
either
form
of
report.
In
Chris’s
scenario,
this
would
have
undoubtedly
have
led
to
a
request
for
the
preparation
of
a
full
pre-
sentence
report,
as
it
is
not
a
case
which
we
would
have
identified
earlier
as
likely
to
require
our
intervention.
In
our
experience,
the
need
for
interventions
in
court
invariably
arise
unexpectedly.
In
cases
where
we
can
foresee
a
case
for
intervention,
this
can
generally
be
sorted
out
beforehand,
via
clerks,
defence
solicitors,
prosecutors
and
probation.
It
does,
however,
involve
talking
with
people
in
court,
besides
the
clerk.
One
wonders
how
an
assertive
court
presence
can
be
developed
without
a
pro-
active role
by
the
Probation
Service.
Everything
which
we
do
has
its
beginnings
in
the
court
process.
If
we
withdraw
from
this,
then
others
will
inevitably
take
the
decisions
on
what
work
it
is
appropriate
to
pass
on
to
the
Probation
Service.
Val
Hope,
Jack
Walkington,
Jack
Downie
Probation
Officers,
Penrith,
Cumbria
Gross
Distortion
I
consider
the
article
by
ChiatulahAmeke
(PJ
June
1996)
to
be
both
racist
and
offensive
in
its
general
tone.
It
also
contains
a
number
of
gross
factual
errors.
The
author
talks
of
the African
people
re-
establishing
themselves
as
’pre-eminent’
and
states
’White
people
constituted
a
backward
minority
in
a
predominantly
black
world
at
ease
with
itself’.
In
my
opinion
both
statements
are
racist
and
should
not
have been
published.
Perhaps
I
should
illustrate
my
point.
Would
readers
find
the
following
acceptable
in
a
PSR?
’This
black
defendant
comes
from
a
backward
minority
living
in
this
white
country.
A
white
country
at
ease
with
itself’ .
Or
perhaps
an
article
in
Probation
Joumal
suggesting
that
the
black
minority
are
ruining
and
over-running
this
white
country,
and
we
whites
should
work
to
make
ourselves
pre-eminent
again?
Many
people
would
rightly
find
these
examples
extremely
distasteful.
The
gross
factual
errors
stem,
in
part,
from
the
author’s
use
of
the
diffusionist
model
of
explaining
cultural
development.
This
model
has
been
modified
over
many
years
and
eventually
found
untenable.
This
s
is
because
of
the
increased
use
of
scientific
techniques
such
as
Radio
Carbon
dating.
The
idea
that
all
European
peoples
and
cultures
originated
inAfrica
is
no
longer
satisfactory.
Skeletons
of
early
primates
known
as
dryopithecines
and
ramapithecines
are
known
from
fossil
sources
in
India,
the
Far
East,
Hungary,
Greece,
Turkey
and
Africa.
Dryopithecines
are
considered
to
have
evolved
into
present
day
apes.
Ramapithecines
are
considered
to
have
evolved
into
early
hominids,
some
of
To continue reading
Request your trial