Sentencing Panels
| Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Published date | 01 September 1978 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455057802500308 |
| Author | Martin Wargent |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
100
the
tentative
conclusions
from
this
evidence
might
be
that
in
the
long
run
it
might
be
more
productive
and
economical
to
implement
these
schemes
for
our
&dquo;amenable&dquo;
offenders,
possibly
by
providing
a
more
specialist
service
than
the
present
probation
service
offers,
and
to
deal
with
others
in
such
a
way
that
they
&dquo;pay&dquo;
for
crime
without
being
expected
to
exhibit
a
change
of
personality
and/or
more
socially
accept-
able
attitudes.
(Christine
Lmvrie
is
a
trainee
probation
officer
in
Fareham,
Hampshire,
pre-
paring
for
a
post-graduate
CQSW
course
this
autumn.)
Sentencing
Panels
MARTIN
WARGENT
WHEN
interviewing
defendants
for
a
Social
Inquiry
Report,
it
may
be
that
modesty
prevents
some
probation
officers
from
making
clear
to
the
de-
fendants
the
importance
of
the
sentence
recommendation
to
the
court.
It
is
clear
that
officers
do
have
considerable
influence
in
this
respect
in
both
Magistrates’
and
Crown
Courts
and
it
may
be
that
the
matter
of
recom-
mendation
should
be
discussed
with
more
emphasis
and,
occasionally,
with
more
honesty.
This
article
suggests
improved
communications
in
sentencing
by
the
Crown
Courts
but
hinges
on
the
generally
neglected
but
crucial
problem
of
the
reporting
officer’s
contribution
to
a
sentencing
decision.
The
Streatfeild
Committee
in
1961
and
the
Morison
Committee
in
1962
gave
some
conflicting
advice
to
the
Probation
Service
about
sentencing
recommendations
but
the
Home
Office
Circular
(194/74)
to
all
Chief
Probation
Offices
states
that
both
the
Home
Secretary
and
the
Lord
Chief
Justice
wish
to
encourage
experienced
probation
officers
to
make
specific
recommendations
to
the
court.
Yet
although
this
would
seem
to
be
the
basis
for
a
consensus
within
the
Service
it
is
possible
to
find
areas
and
individuals
who
feel
that
by
being
specific
they
usurp
the
proper
function
of
the
courts.
Nevertheless
it
could
be
contended
that
the
majority
do
follow
the
advice
of
the
Circular
and
include
a
specific
recommendations
and,
with
this
contention,
one
can
explore
the
area
in
more
detail.
The
commitment
of
the
Service
to
work
for the
Crown
Courts
remains
at
a
high
level
after
the
dramatic
increase
in
Social
Inquiry
Reports
over
the
last
decade.
In
South
Yorkshire
the
Service
prepared
1,787
reports
for the
Crown
Courts
in
1974,
2,131
in
1975
and
2,196
in
1976.
This
level
is
matched
by
reports
to
the
Magistrates’
Courts
but
it
may
be
felt
by
an
increasing
number
of
Probation
Areas
that
the
involvement
in
the
work
of
the
Service
by
magistrates
and
the
relatively
good
communication
be-
tween
them
and
the
Service
as
a
whole
and
as
individuals
is
not
matched
in
the
higher
courts
and,
indeed,
some
offices
comment
upon
an
increas-
ing
gap
in
knowledge
and
perception
between
the
Crown
Courts
and
the
Probation
Service.
’ The
Rotherham
district
of
the
South
Yorkshire
Probation
Service
may
serve
as
an
illustration
of
the
potential
for
communication
at
the
lower
To continue reading
Request your trial