The process of gathering, obtaining and verifying information about an offender can be a long and complex process involving not only the practitioner and the offender, but also other individuals and agencies. For the practitioner there are three key sources of information that can be identified when aiming to gather information. The first area is perhaps the initial stage for a Probation Officer, which is receiving information on an offender. This can take the form of previous Pre-sentence reports (PSR’s), previous case file information, CPS papers and electronic records. These examples are to mention but a few areas of resources that allow the practitioner to build up an initial picture of a specific offender. The second area that provides the Probation Officer with information is from the offender themselves, with the format of the interview being the primary means of gathering information. The final area for information gathering comes from other sources, which could take the form of the police, the courts, psychiatrists and/or the offenders family are to name but a few.

I gathered and compiled information on an offender named RR in order to produce a PSR Crown Court. The offence was one of fraud against the Department of Work and Pensions. My pre-conceptions of the case led me to believe that it was simply the cashing of someone else’s giro cheque. However as more information was gathered and analysed such views proved to be premature and ill founded. When given the case I was simply presented with one sheet of paper – a PSR request form. No other paperwork was included so I immediately found myself with a problem, and when one completes a PSR for the first time ideally the necessary paperwork is already provided. It came to my attention that this was not a prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but a private prosecution by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). I had to telephone their office and speak to the legal team, who informed me that there were four co-accused and that they had over 500 pages of evidence. To practically carry out s PSR and have enough time to read and interpret the information needed I felt that an outline of the case and any other information specifically relating to RR would be more than adequate.

The DWP sent me the prosecution papers, pre-convictions, an outline of the charges against RR and his co-accused, and a transcribed interview between RR and the police. Further information on RR was gathered from the CRAMS database, but when looking to rendezvous with the other potential PSR writers for the co-accused I found that the other co-accused had not been assigned to any P.O’s. At this point in time it was realized that my one source of information in the gathering stage was that of the DWP.

The information received outlined the charges against RR, and the interview indicated his role in the offence. However the paperwork also informed me that RR was in fact French, and that although an interpreter was requested at his police interview there was a failure to allocate one to him. It was clear that RR had a basic understanding of English – yet the extent of his knowledge remained questionable. Throughout the interview it became apparent that RR struggled to fully comprehend the English language and so for my PSR interview I would have to use an interpreter in order to avoid any language barriers/discrepancies that may arise. By telephoning the Local Authority provision of interpreters and translators I was able to book an interpreter for the allotted time of the interview with RR.

The final part of this element was a production of an appointment letter to RR. This was undertaken by myself as I needed to inform RR that an interpreter and my PDA would be present at the interview.

On reflection the interview with RR could seem to be daunting for myself, particularly with the addition of an interpreter and my PDA, who was there simply to observe my performance as a PSR interviewer. For a first PSR interview one could perceive there to be a pressured situation simply due to the number of people within one room. However for me there was, if anything, less pressure. I felt that the limelight would fundamentally be on the interpreter; afterall he would be the main line of communication between RR and myself. The aim of the interview was of course to gather the relevant information needed to produce an accurate, concise PSR for the court. The obstacle was of course the language barrier – yes I had an interpreter but the question of how he interpreted RR’s answers and relayed them back to me was one that played on my mind. Could the meanings relayed by RR be lost in translation? Throughout the interview I became aware that RR constantly talked, yet the interpreter’s answers to me were short and simple.

Essentially communication between myself and RR flowed well, enhanced by the role of the interpreter. I gathered the required information and recorded it by means of taking notes. However upon beginning the process of completing the PSR, which includes the E-OASYS and initial sentence plan, I discovered that there were a few questions that still needed answering and so set up a second appointment with RR.

On this occasion I decided that an interpreter would not be needed. On the basis of the information gathered, my communication with RR and my PDA, and my own basic knowledge of the French language I felt that communication could be effective between myself and RR for this less formal meeting. I gave much thought as to whether this form of interview may in fact be a form of discriminatory practice in that RR could misinterpret my questions or feel intimidated without an interpreter present. However I discussed that fact primarily with RR over the telephone, and subsequently with my PDA and I decided that the possibility of discriminatory practice could be minimized by the way I conduct the interview and communicate with RR. This assessment proved to be accurate and the second interview went extremely well. I discovered that RR was actually more fluent and knowledgeable with the English language than first thought.

Again, on reflection I felt that the two interviews produced valid and sufficient information required to construct a central part of the report. Both myself and RR were able to communicate freely and in an anti-discriminatory manner. I was aware of the possible restraints that may have existed, and dealt with them in an effective manner by structuring my questions in a way that could be easily understood by RR and not misinterpreted. Furthermore I was able to challenge any discrepancies and relay the information I received back to RR. One particular example of challenging RR occurred when he stated that there was unaware of the risks’ associated with his offending behaviour. However a few minutes later he stated that ‘he was aware of the risks.’ I was able to pick up on these words and use the contradiction to gage whether he was or was not aware of the risks associated with his behaviour. Anti discriminatory practice could also be linked to the fact that RR was a black African male, and that legislation and policies exist to eliminate and discriminatory behaviour towards another individual from a different culture…..

‘The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a duty on public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, promote equal opportunities and good race relations between people of different racial groups in everything that they do.’

This is something I have become increasingly aware of throughout the traineeship and aim to eliminate any discriminatory practice between myself and any offender who may have a different cultural background.

Having gathered the initial information and interviewed the offender I then had to obtain any information necessary to fully inform me of the facts of the case. The information given by RR may have been sufficient for his version of events, but the reliability of that information needed to be put in the context of the facts presented by the prosecution. I felt that in order to accurately gage a holistic view of the offence I would need to discuss the case with the DWP officer involved in the case, PG. This officer was present throughout the police interview and was involved in the prosecution and evidence gathering stages. I telephoned GG and discussed the issues surrounding the offence, and the impression he had of RR and the co-accused. He stated that he had dealt with RR on a previous occasion for a similar offence and so had some valid information to pass to me.

Having completed the stages of information gathering I found myself developing hypothesis and ideas around the motivations behind RR’s offending, his attitude and the effects of his current and previous circumstances. The information received and my assessments regarding risk and links to his offending were all recorded on the E-OASYS and Risk Assessments before the completion of the PSR. Part of National Standards (2000) states that a PSR has to arrive at court 3 days before the hearing of the case, yet in this instance due to the delay in gathering the information it arrived in court a day late. This was outlined in the PS Pre-sentence report Policy found in keynotes.

In terms of my overall competence through the PSR process, which mirrors the processes of this unit, I feel that I have achieved the necessary information to produce a PSR, and analysed and interpreted the information gathered effectively and efficiently. I sought additional support from my PDA, who observed me in the interviews, and my line manager, who gate kept the report and signed it before it went to Crown Court.

Although a pre-sentence report is ideal in demonstrating how each of these elements can be met in practice, my own practice in other areas also demonstrates my knowledge, understanding and practice with regards to each of the four elements.

In the case of PP an additional offence was committed whilst on his Community Rehabilitation Order (CRO). Upon discussing the issue with my line manager I perceived to be serious enough to warrant the production of a further risk assessment based on the facts of the offence committed. The offence itself centred around racially aggravated threats to kill, and involved two other residents at the hostel where PP was currently residing. The aim of producing a further assessment is to update the possible risks posed by PP, primarily risks posed to the public. PP himself failed to identify the risks he posed to others, stating that he had been drinking and retaliated to the victims, whom he said offended him. On the evidence of the current offence the risks posed were far greater when taking the threats to kill charge into consideration. In terms of gathering the relevant information on the offence I spoke to PP, his key worker at the hostel and read the Crown Prosecution Service’s itinerary which included an outline of the charge and the witnesses present. Again this array of information informed me, the practitioner, about the incident as a whole and allowed me scope in assessing the potential risks posed by PP. The risks posed by PP are linked to two main factors – his alcohol consumption and a failure to control his temper. These are two areas that are heavily linked to offending behaviour, indeed in my short experience of the Probation Service they are two key triggers to offending behaviour. Of course the risks posed by an offender is also measured by the OGRS score, a tool which measure the possible chance of the offender being reconvicted for offending behaviour. The indicators of the risks assessment and OGRS score are useful in monitoring and predicting the risks posed by an offender such as PP.

This was mirrored by further potential risks posed by MM. he stated during a supervision session that he believed he may have abused his sister when he was much younger. In further sessions he revealed that he wanted to move house to be near a school and that he was attracted to a young girl that lived on his street. These revelations were identified by me to pose a potential risk of harm to others, and that MM’s sexual attitudes had to be measured and monitored. This included the completion of a new risk assessment based on the circumstantial evidence he has presented to me. I discussed the issues with my line manager and she agreed that there was a potentially raised risk, and that furthermore his attitudes towards women and sex should be explored more thoroughly to identify and possible risks posed.

Copyright(C) 2007 - 2020. All rights reserved.

   PROBATION HOME