Twenty-Third Annual Conference
| Published date | 01 October 1935 |
| Author | J.F. Henderson |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455053500200204 |
| Date | 01 October 1935 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
21
TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
Mr. J. F. HENDERSON, Home Office,
REPLIES TO
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS
cerned, the magistrate generally allows a police.
A T the conclusion of the formal business, re-
ported in the July issue of the journal, the
officer to make his statement not on oath, but if
President announced the arrival of Mr. J. F.
the defendant disputes any material statement then
Henderson and Mr. B. J. Reynolds, representing
strict proof upon oath is required, and when it comes
the Home Office, and Lord Polwarth, representing
to getting strict proof upon oath then, of course, a
the Scottish Central Probation Council. Approval
police officer is only entitled to give evidence of
of Conference
what he knows
was granted for their participation
himself, and he cannot introduce
in the proceedings for the purpose of replying to
hearsay evidence.
members’ questions.
&dquo; There appears to be no distinction between
Mr. Henderson then dealt with questions that had
evidence of that sort given by a police officer and
been previously submitted to the Home Office in
that given by a probation officer. If the probation
writing.
officer makes a statement in Court that is- disputed
&dquo;
What legal provision exists for com.pelling a
by the defendant, then apparently there is no reason
probation officer, after a verdict of guilt has been
whatever why the probation officer should not be
recorded, to render reports of investigations from
asked to give evidence on oath, in which case his
the witness box under oath?&dquo;
evidence must be limited to things that he actually..
Mr. HENDERSON: &dquo; Before answering this
knows of his
ques-
own knowledge, and must not include
tion I should like to ask whether the circumstances
things that he has been told, and he is subject to
that gave rise to the question constitute an isolated
cross examination.
&dquo;
case or whether other probation officers have ever
We think that is a perfectly sound and proper-
been asked to make statements on oath ?&dquo;
position and if the Court asks a probation ofhcer
A number of probation officers replied in the
to make a statement on oath I don’t see any reason
affirmative.
why the probation officer should make any difficulty
Mr. HENDERSON: &dquo; A statement on oath after
about making it on oath, and from the replies to
the prisoner has been found guilty?&dquo;
my earlier question it is apparently not at all un-
MANY PROBATION OFFICERS : &dquo; Yes ! &dquo;
common that evidence is given on oath.
Mr. HENDERSON: &dquo; Then it is apparently
&dquo;
some-
I think it would prejudice the position of the
thing which has not been infrequent. The position,
probation officer if there were any reluctance to make
as we understand it, and as we are advised by our
a statement of this sort on oath.&dquo;
legal advisers, is this : the position of a probation
A PROBATION OFFICER: &dquo; During the passage of
officer is just comparable to that of a police officer
the Children and Young Persons Bill it was stated in
who is asked very frequently, after a man has been
Parliament that the provisions in that Bill for en-
found guilty, whether anything is known about the
quiries by probation officers and by local authorities’
prisoner. There have been several decisions by the
officers would in no way affect the power of the pro-
High Court as to what is legitimate for a police
bation officer to make enquiries and render reports
officer to say under those conditions, and the prac-
under rule 37 of the Probation Rules, 1926. If the
tice has been sanctioned by the Court of Criminal
probation officer acting under the provisions of rule
Appeal. It is there laid down that the Court is
37 rendered a report in a Juvenile Court after a
bound to exercise caution in discriminating between
verdict of guilty had been announced would Mr:
the knowledge of the police officer and any hear-
Henderson’s reply apply?&dquo;
say information.
Mr. HENDERSON : &dquo; Supposing the probation
&dquo; So far as the police courts in London are con-
officer has been instructed by the Court to make
22
enquiries, or is doing it’in pursuance of a general
returns of a given probation area the particulars
direction that he shall make enquiries, then...
To continue reading
Request your trial