Write-Offs Campaign
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Author | Dave Dent |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058803500319 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
119
in
this
way
is
detrimental
to
families
who
should
be
our
clients.
NAPO
policy on
this
subject
was
not
arriv-
ed
at
lightly.
It
states:
’that
the
primary
role
of
the
CWO
is
to
assist
family
members
to
re-
establish
their
ability
to
negotiate
with
each
other
in
order
to
take
decisions
for
themselves’.
We
know
that
there
are
times
when
probation
officers
in
the
field
and
in
specialist
court
welfare
teams
feel
that
they
lack
the
confidence,
training
and/or
the
skills
to
carry
through
this
policy
in
their
work,
because
they
fear
criticism
from
the
judiciary.
The
experience
of
5%
years
reassures
us
that
a
consistently
clear
line
from
the
Service,
argued
not
from
a
legalistic
stand-
point
but
from
one
based
on
social
work
values
and
knowledge
of
family
relations,
is
acceptable
to
the
Bench
and
provides
those
who
are
asked
to
make
judgements
in
family
courts
with
a
welcome
alternative
perspective.
In
passing,
can
we
not
also
finally
quell
the
arguments
about
conciliation
and
welfare
report
writing?
If
’conciliation’
is
both
a
voluntary
and
priviliged
activity,
how
can
welfare
officers
engaged
in
the
preparation
of
reports,
on
the
instructions
of
the
court,
even
be
considered
to
be
involved
in
conciliation?
May
we
presume
that
if
the
Birmingham
team
felt
that
it
was
only
magistrates
who
failed
to
grasp
the
arguments,
consistenly
argued
in
the
pages
of
this
journal
over
the
past
decade,
they
would
have
addressed
their
comments
to
’Justice
of
the
Peace’?!
Surely
it
is
the
confusion
and
muddle
of
disparate
models
which
is
our
greatest
enemy
in
making
progress
in
this
area.
We
should
welcome
clarity
of
thought
and
purpose
about
our
role,
for
it
is
only
in
the
expression
and
im-
plementation
of
such
ideas
that
we
will
secure
a
proper
role
for
the
Service
in
civil
courts
and
provide
a
more
effective
service
to
our
clients.
Come
on
colleagues,
have
the
courage
of
your
convictions!
Let’s
put
NAPO
policy
on
this
issue
into
force
throughout
the
country
and
provide
the
courts
with
a
united
front,
based
on
sound
and
well
argued
principles.
SHAK
BANFIELD,
MICHAEL
DAY,
DIANA
GELIOT,
REG
HALL,
DOMINIC
RAESIDE,
ROD
THOMAS,
LOUISE
TUHILL.
Court
Welfare
Team,
Balham
.
Write-Offs
Campaign
In his
article
on
’The
Police
and
Prison
Write-
Offs’
~P.1 June
1988)
Pete
Gill
refers
to
the
in-
volvement
of
Merseyside
NAPO
in
this
issue.
It
is
indeed
the
case
that
our
Branch
has
been
interested
in
the
subject
for
several
months
and
we
first
contacted
the
Merseyside
Police
Authority
in
Autumn
last
year.
An
initial
letter
from
the
Clerk
of
the
Police
Authority
declined
our
suggestion
that
the
sub-
ject
be
placed
on
the
Authority’s
next
agenda.
We
were
therefore
very
surprised
when
the
Chief
Constable,
without
notice
to
the
elected
councillors
and
Magistrates
on
the
Authority,
raised
the
matter
himself
and
gave
a
one-sided
account.
In
these
circumstances,
Merseyside
NAPO
wrote
direct
to
each
member
of
the
Police
Authority
with
a
request
that
the
issue
of
’write-offs’
be
aired
publicly.
Once
again
we
were
disappointed.
At
that
stage
we
felt
we
had
done
all
we
could
at
a
local
level
and
we
refer-
red
the
whole
subject
to
National
Criminal
Justice
Committee.
That
committee
eventually
came
to
the
conclusion
that
little
would
be
gain-
ed
by
getting
involved.
However,
all
our
efforts
have
not
been
in
vain.
In
June
1988
the
Annual
Report
of
the
Chief
Constable
of
Merseyide
was
published.
In
the
report
he
refers
to
the
system
of
police
’write-offs’.
The
statistics
quoted
in
the
report
indicate
that
in
1987
a
staggering
61
%
of
crime
on
Merseyside
was
’cleared
up’
by
police
ob-
taining
’admissions’
from
prisoners
post-
sentence.
Publicity
given
by
the
local
media
to
this
figure
has
led
to
at
least
two
local
MPs
stating
a
determination
to
have
the
subject
fully
investigated.
Furthermore,
the
campaign
was
given
further
impetus
when
a
Merseyside
detec-
tive,
to
quote
the
local
evening
paper,
’broke
ranks’
and
stated
that
the
local
crime
figures
were
’a
sham’.
In
a
sworn
affidavit,
this
officer
confirmed
that
Home
Office
guidelines
were
breached
almost
every
time
a
’write-off’
confession
was
obtained.
He
went
on
to
say
what
we
in
Merseyside
NAPO
have
been
say-
ing
for
some
time
-
that
victims
of
crime
are
rarely
consulted
about
offences
’detected’
in
this
way.
My
purpose
in
writing
this
letter
is
two-fold:
1.
To
show
that
NAPO
can
be
involved
postively
in
local
campaigns
and
use
the
media
to
good
effect.
To continue reading
Request your trial