Stand-down and deliver
| Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Published date | 01 December 2017 |
| Author | Gwen Robinson |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517734928 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Stand-down and
deliver: Pre-Sentence
Reports, quality and
the new culture of
speed
Gwen Robinson
University of Sheffield, UK
Abstract
This article considers the recent and rapid evolution of Pre-Sentence Reports (PSRs) in
England and Wales, which has entailed changes in both the speed of production and
the mode of delivery of reports prepared by probation teams. The article analyses the
main drivers behind these changes before going on to consider the implications for
how the quality of contemporary reports should be assessed. It argues for a recon-
sideration of quality in the PSR context: one which takes into account the structural and
cultural changes that have impacted upon PSR production in recent years, is flexible
enough to cope with the different forms (oral/written) that reports may take, and takes
into account the needs and expectations of the key stakeholders involved in the pro-
duction and use of reports. It concludes that, in the new court culture of speed, time-
liness (as featured in current National Standards) is an important quality for PSRs, but
as a sole measure of quality it leaves a great deal to be desired.
Keywords
Pre-Sentence Reports, courts, sentencing, quality, Transforming Justice, Transforming
Rehabilitation
Corresponding Author:
Gwen Robinson, School of Law, University of Sheffield, Winter Street, Sheffield S3 7ND, UK.
Email: g.j.robinson@sheffield.ac.uk
Probation Journal
2017, Vol. 64(4) 337–353
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0264550517734928
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Introduction
For decades, Pre-Sentence Reports have been prepared for the criminal courts by
probation staff, typically following an adjournment of around three weeks between
conviction and sentence. In 2006, these ‘standard delivery’ reports made up 77 per
cent of all Pre-Sentence Reports prepared by the probation service in England and
Wales, but a decade later, in 2016, the proportion of such reports reached an all-
time low of just 7 per cent. Furthermore, 2016 saw the number of ‘stand-down’ PSRs
– those delivered orally in court on the day of request – exceed the number delivered
in writing (i.e. standard and fast-delivery written reports) for the first time (Ministry of
Justice, 2017a). This dramatic change in the delivery of Pre-Sentence Reports in
England and Wales has not attracted a great deal of academic attention, yet it
represents a significant cultural shift in probation practice which merits critical
scrutiny.
This article begins by tracing key developments in policy and practice relating to
Pre-Sentence Reports (and their predecessors, Social Inquiry Reports) in England
and Wales, focusing on the problematization of the Standard Delivery Report from
the latter part of the 1990s. The second part of the article considers the relationship
between speed and quality, arguing that what ‘quality’ means in relation to PSR
practice, far from being straightforward or objective, is in fact subject to variation
over time as well as competing perspectives. The final part of the article argues for a
‘realist’ approach to thinking about the quality of PSRs in the contemporary context:
one which accepts the value of speedy production from the court’s point of view, but
which is also cognizant of the needs of (and potential risks to) practitioners and
defendants in the new culture of speed.
A brief history of Pre-Sentence Reports in England
and Wales
The origins of Pre-Sentence Reports have been traced back to at least the 1860s,
when Edward Cox, the Recorder at Middlesex Quarter Sessions, appointed George
Lockyer to make enquiries about certain offenders in cases where leniency was
being considered (Vanstone, 2004). This reporting function continued in the
practice of the police court missionaries, who followed a decade later, and sub-
sequently into the work of the 20th-century probation service.
1
As Gelsthorpe and
Raynor (1995) observe, this early practice of reporting to the court was almost
certainly done orally, but the production of written reports dates back to at least the
early 20th century. As one of the most tangible artefacts of probation work, written
reports have attracted the interest of several researchers over the years, and have
been seen as offering ‘the most penetrating insights into the service’s understanding
of itself and its goals’ (McWilliams, 1985: 257). For example, McWilliams’ (1986)
analysis of reports produced between the 1930s and 1960s was used to illustrate a
significant shift in probation’s mission from a phase of ‘special pleading’ to one of
‘scientific diagnosis and treatment’. Subsequently, researchers including Hudson
and Bramhall (2005) and Gelsthorpe et al. (2010) have sought to illustrate other
338 Probation Journal 64(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial