The Victim In The Pre-Sentence Report
| Author | Owen Wells |
| Published date | 01 December 2001 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050104800407 |
| Date | 01 December 2001 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
290
“We also discussed the repercussions of
supplying drugs and that there were
always ‘indirect’ victims, such as the
victims of crime caused by drug use or
children neglected by drug using parents.”
“The effect of seeing an intruder in one’s
home would be particularly traumatic for
anybody ... [especially] ... someone of
the victim’s age.”
Arecent HM Inspectorate of Probation
report (HMIP, 2000) has commented on the
lack of a victim perspective in PSRs. The
checklist that was produced for a PSR audit
which formed a part of the report has two
questions concerned with victims. Question
2.4(b) asks ‘Where there is a direct victim
[what is the] offender’s awareness of the
impact and consequences of the offence on
the victim?’It allows for an answer of ‘not
applicable’. However, question 2.3 – ‘How
well does the PSR assess the consequences
of the offence, including what is known of
the impact on any victim, either from the
CPS papers or a victim statement where
available?’– must be ticked 1 (excellent) to
4 (very poor).
Hence sentences such as the above,
taken from three actual PSRs, have become
more common. Probation areas have
assumed that the only way to avoid
criticism is to make some mention of a
victim’s perspective and PSR writers are
actively encouraged to ensure that such
statements are routinely included simply to
avoid criticism in any forthcoming HMIP
audit. Sadly, such statements seem neither
in accordance with a close reading of
National Standards (2000), nor in
accordance with Court of A p p e a l
guidelines.
Assessing the generalised consequence
of an offence is a very difficult matter. The
classic argument is that which derives from
the consequences of stealing from
telephone boxes. It can be argued that such
behaviour can lead to considerable ‘knock-
o n ’ consequences. For example, if a
damaged phone is not available when
someone needs to call an ambulance, then
death might be the consequence. However,
this relies on a ‘worst case scenario’ and
Ashworth and von Hirsch (Criminal Law
R e v i e w, 1997, pp.187-200, as cited in
Stone, 2001) argue that “It is wrong to
assess seriousness by reference to merely
possible consequences”. When we discuss
the consequences of an offence, without
reference to a particular victim, we are
forced into speculation, and it is difficult to
The Victim In The
Pre-Sentence Report
Owen Wells argues that the Probation Inspectorate’s criticism of
pre-sentence reports for making insufficient reference to the victim’s
perspective has encouraged legally questionable practice.
REFLECTIONS
Reflections-p290-291 22/11/01 9:13 am Page 1
To continue reading
Request your trial