When joining the Probation service we were informed that part of the job description was report writing, largely in the format of Pre-sentence Report writing. However throughout the traineeship I have discovered that there are numerous other reports that the practitioner also has to write, including parole reports and Specific Sentence reports. The training and completion of such reports has only recently been completed, and prior to the production of each type of report I have felt nervous in terms of the type of content I should include, the style of the writing and what the courts may think of the report.

Of course I have covered the SSR report writing in the court unit (F407). These are reports that can be requested by Magistrates and the interview and sentence proposals are carried out and relayed in the court shortly after the request has been made. These reports deal with offences that are less serious and can be dealt with in a short period of time. On that basis a PSR is no longer needed and the speed at which cases can be dealt with quickens. Throughout my placement at the magistrate’s court I completed three such reports and felt that after each one I grew in stature, competence and confidence.

However the key decision making tool in relation to more serious offences is that of the PSR….

            “The court must consider a PSR when contemplating a custodial sentence or most varieties

                  of Community sentence.”      (Thomas, D. Pp. 90)

Before the Criminal Justice Act (1991) was introduced the courts relied on Social Enquiry Reports, which were produced by the Probation Service or the Social Services. However the C.J.A renamed the reports and gave them a more ‘structured and defined’ way. The training we undertook essentially aimed to inform us as to the type of content we were aiming to include in the report. The next step was to undertake the interview and seek advice from my PDA as and when required. I have thus far completed two PSR’s One of which I needed an interpreter for) which have both been sent to court within the allotted time (3 days before the hearing date – as specified in PSR Policy document 2002).

In the case of HH I was already supervising a 12 month Community Rehabilitation Order which he incurred in December for motoring offences. However he re-offended and pleaded guilty to domestic violence against his partner. I discussed this with the original PSR writer and it was agreed that I would carry out the interview and write the report. Having already compiled a case history of HH through the production of E-OASys, supervision plans and previous PSR’s the interview progressed well and the relevant information needed was gathered. Within the interview I discussed and assessed the responsibility taken for the offence, the context in which the offence occurred and the attitude of HH towards the victim and the offence. On the evidence I collected from the interview, the information available through Probation records and the information gathered from other agencies (Domestic Violence Unit, Magistrates Court) I was able to assess and hypothesise about HH’s offending behaviour and compile a full and accurate Pre Sentence Report.

Before the preparation of the report I decided that I would discuss the type of proposal I would go for with the original PSR writer, XX. Initially I felt that, on the evidence that this offence was a domestic violence case and that information from the DVU suggested the police had been called recently to a similar incident then HH may benefit from attending a Domestic Violence Programme (DULUTH). However on discussion with XX she stated that PSR writers had received an e-mail asking them not to refer under 25’s to the programme due to staffing shortages. Therefore although it was felt that this would benefit him my hands were tied in terms of proposing this condition to a sentence. This I felt was also an important condition in terms of managing the potential risk posed by HH in the future, however due to resource issues I would have to identify another means of managing the potential risk.

It was my assessment that a custodial sentence was inappropriate for this offence simply due to circumstantial evidence and the severity of the offence. I did have concerns regarding the fact that the DVU had received a previous call; however I felt that the risk could be monitored and managed within the community. Part of the circumstances that surrounded the offence involved finance and employment and so I felt that a Community rehabilitation Order would allow HH to address these difficulties and ultimately alleviate them. However due to the seriousness of the offence I also felt that a further punishment within the community was appropriate. On the basis of the evidence and my skills as a Probation Officer My proposal was a 12 month Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order.

On that basis I was able to complete the PSR and send it to the court within the appropriate time scale.

A further type of report is that of the Parole Report, whose statutory basis has emerged from the 1991 C.J.A, section 32. Parole reports make an ‘extremely important contribution to the Parole Board’s decision whether to release a determinate sentenced prisoner’ (Good Practice Guidance. Pp.1). It is therefore the responsibility of the National Probation Service (NPS) to produce such reports and subsequently supervise offenders released on parole licence. Upon moving to the resettlement team I was aware that we may have to produce a parole report, but was unsure as to their purpose and content until I began to read around the guidelines set out by the NPS. When preparing a Parole Report the guidelines state that there are key requirements for Probation staff preparing such reports… (Good Practice Guidance. Pp.1)

“First and foremost to consider whether the prisoner will commit a further offence between the date of release on Parole and the non parole date…and to balance that shorter term risk against the potential reduction in longer term risk accruing from a longer period of supervision.”

When producing a Parole Report it is important to be aware that public protection is the key consideration for the Parole board. In terms of learning about reports this is something that as a trainee we have received no training or information regarding the production of Parole Reports. This lack of training meant that I had to take the following steps, particularly due to the fact that I received a request for the production of a report as soon as I moved into the resettlement team…..

1. Gather information on Parole reports – looking at the guidelines, policies and structures of the reports.
2. Discuss the report with a line manager from the resettlement team.
3. Arrange to shadow a P.O, TT, who was carrying out a parole Report.
4. Discuss the completion of a report with a fellow trainee, who had recently completed one.

At that point in time I again felt that the traineeship had failed to provide me with sufficient training on an important aspect of Probation work. This is, as I have stated earlier, a very important report that needs to be produced along guidelines that are reminiscent to Pre-Sentence Reports.

From further information gathering I discovered that the report I would produce would be one of two produced fro that offender. The second report would be produced by the seconded probation Officer, and the two reports would look to compliment each other and offer a more detailed picture as to the offender’s suitability for parole. After observing TT in the process of interviewing the parolee, producing the report and discussing further aspects of Parole reports I felt that I had to take the following steps to produce a report for the offender I had been allocated….

1. Interview TT at the prison and gather information relevant to the Parole report.
2. Discuss the case with TT’s case manager and look into the assessment on Parole given by MC.
3. Discuss the Parole report with the seconded Probation Officer.
4. Identify any areas that may need to be further investigated and write the report.

Prior to attending the prison I made sure that I re-read the CPS documents and witness statements, and familiarised myself with the case. On discussing the differences between PSR and Parole type interviews I formulated a set of guidelines which I would follow in order to gain the relevant type of information for the report. Throughout the interview I noticed that I questioned him more about his future plans, the risks he felt he may present, the effect of his release on the victims of his offence, the plans he had upon release and the direction his life would take upon release. The interview went very well and I felt that I conducted it in a professional, anti-discriminatory and appropriate manner.

Having completed the interview with TT I felt it was then necessary to...

1. Discuss the type of proposal and the direction of the report with TT’s case manager (MM) and the seconded Probation Officer at the prison (II). This is essentially the following of the format for the production of a parole report.
2. Investigate any areas of concern or related to his release into the community, which in this instance was his release address and the possibility that he may have guaranteed employment upon his release.

MM proved to be quite familiar with the case given the fact that he had only inherited it a few months ago. With MM we discussed all aspects of the case, including victim issues, the attitude of TT and the goals and objectives we would set him should he be given parole. Mm and myself went into great detail about the issue of the victims within his offences, although TT claimed he did not target his victims the pattern of his offending suggests that there was a strong element of targeting as the victims were all elderly, vulnerable people. This is a major concern in weighing up the pros and cons of recommending parole. Following our conversation it was my assessment that MM was largely against the idea of parole, citing the possible targeting of his victims and his previous convictions as two areas that could increase his risk of re-offending/risk to others when released into the community.

Having discussed various issues with his home probation officer my next step in the information gathering process was to discuss related issues and explore the views and assessment of the seconded Probation Officer located at the prison.

Throughout the interview TT provided me with two key pieces of information that needed to be followed up on my return to the office. The first was his proposed release address, which is where he said he would reside upon release. The address was the home of his current partner and I had to assess his suitability in terms of his partners accommodation, her attitude towards his release, the location of any victims to the address and whether there were any potential problems. After telephoning her I decided that a home visit would be conducted for such an assessment, and I invited MM (the case manager) along as he would be able to gather any information he felt to be relevant to his case.

The second part of the investigation involved contact being made between myself and MM, whom TT identified as being a potential employer upon his release. After failing to make contact via telephone I decided to write to the employer, which was a building contractor.

After the process of gathering information, reviewing case files and discussing the case with parties whom were heavily involved I had to bring this information together and formulate my assessments on risk issues he presents and his suitability for being released on parole. The format of the Parole report is significantly different from PSR’s in that its primary focus is potential risks posed to the community by the parolee. I found writing this report to be much more straightforward and to an extent more enjoyable in that the writer has more of a licence to include information that he or she feels is relevant to the parole application.

The fourth type of report that I have come into contact with since entering the resettlement team is that of Home Detention Curfew report (HDC’s). These type of reports result in suitable offenders being released before their Automatic Conditional Release (ACR) form prison, usually on a 12 hour curfew which is monitored via an electronic tag by a curfew monitoring company. Breaches in the HDC conditions result in a return to custody until the date of ACR.

In the case of DD I received a HDC3 which is a request form from the prison for an officer to assess the suitability of the proposed accommodation. HDC assessments can be carried out via a telephone call or a home visit, but personally I would prefer to carry out a home visit for all HDC requests if practical. By conducting visits I am able to engage with the residents and look at the suitability of the address. Upon visiting the proposed address, DD’s mother, I was able to discuss issues of how she felt about the situation, and possible problems and the length of time she would be able to accommodate him. Furthermore I was able to visually assess the practicality of the home and identify any practical issues that may impede the household such as sleeping arrangements. I did notice on this particular visit that the house was a two bedroom house, and with DD’s mother and brother already resident there sleeping arrangements would need to be clarified. His mother stated that she worked nights, usually slept on the settee and added that she only saw this arrangement as a short term solution. On calibrating the evidence, which included DD’s previous responses to supervision and his pre-convictions, it was my assessment that the HDC request could be supported.

The writing of this report proved to be a straightforward process.

Writing reports is something that I have found to be extremely challenging, rewarding and at times problematic. The conducting of interviews to gain the relevant information had, initially been a concern in that I wanted to make sure that I did not leave myself short of information when writing a report. For my first PSR, RR I found that my interview went on for a long time and I had to conduct a second interview in light of requiring additional information. However as my report writing has progressed my interview techniques have become more refined and direct. I have also discovered that I have become more aware of anti discriminatory practice issues and diversity – issues that were at the forefront of my first PSR as RR was a black male from a different culture (see RPJ 04).

Throughout my time as a trainee I have identified the production of these four types of report to be key aspects of developing ones skills as a probation officer. Each of the reports contain specific criteria that need to be fulfilled and the purpose of each report vary considerably. Despite such differences I feel that following the production of my first PSR I have grown in confidence and ability in terms of report writing per se. This RPJ shows that the styles of report writing differ considerably between each type of report, yet my continuing development as a report writer has allowed me to maintain and develop general report writing skills and apply them to the required reports at particular times.

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

   PROBATION HOME