Upon entering the traineeship I was aware that some form of court placement would take place at some stage, and I had a vague apprehension as to the role of Probation Officers in a court setting. However as the time for the placement drew nearer I began to feel a little uneasy about it as it would be like starting a new job again. I was unaware of what was expected of me and at the same time apprehensive about whether I could meet the expectations and requirements set. The only relief I had going into the placement was that I was placed with two other trainees, whom I hoped were in the same position as me.
I knew from previous experience in terms of attending court with my own clients the expectations in relation to the dress code. There are of course accepted dress codes for all agency representatives at courts (i.e. solicitors, magistrates) and Probation Officers are no exception. Suits for males and females are a requirement in the magistrates’ court setting, and although I feel it is a little dated in modern times I can at the same time understand the reasoning behind such expectations. After all we as individuals are representing an organization, and the reputation of such an organization is dictated by its staff.
My preconceptions of the magistrates’ court had largely been dictated by the media and my own experiences in them. Having appeared in a magistrate’s court for an offence in the past I felt that I would at least be able to empathise with some of the individuals whom I would be observing and working with. I can still recall the memories of standing before the bench, trembling and not knowing what to expect. Of course everything was so formal and followed a strict routine which again I can recall. I can recollect thinking at the time what a prehistoric and theatrical way of dealing with someone who has committed an offence, particularly in modern day Britain.
In terms of the media forming further pre-conceived ideas I have observed numerous court based programmes (factual and fictional) and read many articles regarding court based practice. Consequently before entering MC for my court placement I already had ideas and opinions on what I should expect and experience.
On my first day I was introduced to JJ, who would be overseeing our training and making sure we completed what was expected of us. She began with introducing how the court process operated and what specifically was expected of the Probation Officer (PO) who worked in the court setting. We were given a court pack to read, which outlined the types of learning opportunities we could expect, the role of the Probation Officer, relevant legislation that may affect our practice and perhaps most importantly what, as TPO’s, we would be expected to complete before the six day placement ended.
The first of these tasks was to simply observe the court process, and learn not only the role of the Probation Officer, but that of the magistrates, the clerks, the solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the ushers and the defendants. The prospect of simply observing was perhaps the best step to take in that I felt I would be able to pick up on the specific types of language used in front of the magistrates and I would be able to see how varying types of cases were dealt with. Again however most importantly was for me to observe the role of the PO I was based with. Throughout the two weeks I observed many court settings that dealt with many types of offences. For example I observed courts with a lay bench and courts that had a district judge, whereby I found the difference in speed with regard to sentencing very different. I also sat in courts that dealt with specific types of offences-domestic violence, DSS fraud etc… However the most interesting observation of the placement from a personal perspective had to be the video link court whereby offenders appeared in court via a link to the local prison. For something encompassed by so much tradition (the court) it seems almost contradictory that they have installed modern day technology to try offenders.
Of course the most valuable aspect of simple observation was of course being able to grasp the expectation of the courts placed on the Probation Officer. I felt that PO’s had to be aware of what was going on at all times, yet they were only interested in cases that may produce a result relevant to the Probation Service, or in other words business. This was emphasized by the planning each morning of which officer would go to a certain court, written on a white board for all to see. This was dependant on the type of offenders would be appearing in each court, and a list was available for each court of which the PO’s could read and locate which offenders they were interested in.
I feel that observation was the most prominent aspect of the court placement and ran consistently through my time there. This process was primarily based on learning through observing and I found it to be an effective learning experience which acted as a stepping stone to actually carrying out the work of a PO. Observation lead to going with an offender to make an initial appointment for a CRO or CPO order, or making a PSR appointment should the court wish for a PSR to be conducted. Once these appointments were made I then answered any questions the individuals may have had regarding the nature or rationale of the courts decision. The relevant papers were then passed to one of the admin staff to process. In terms of how I felt my only reservation on each occasion was that the judge may need a PO and look towards myself, and this actually played on my mind for a substantial amount of time. The scenario of ‘standing up in court and telling the judge that I didn’t know what to do’ was the recurring nightmare, but fortunately for me this did not happen and by the end of the placement I felt confident enough to stand in the courtroom and address the judge.
The amount of information passed through the courts is substantial, and a lot of this is passed through the Probation Office in the courts. Whilst on the placement I found myself dealing with vast amounts of Pre-sentence reports (PSR’s), bail information sheets, specific sentence reports (SSR’s), appointment papers and breach proceedings to name but a few. One of the tasks set was to proof read PSR’s sent in from various Probation Offices-that is to look for grammatical errors and check that it actually made sense. For instance I proof-read a PSR written by a fellow TPO and found numerous grammatical mistakes which needed correcting. I learned that the policy is to contact the PSR writer and allow them to make the changes, and if this is not possible speak to an administrative officer, which I then carried out. I found the reading of PSR’s to be very informative in that although a PSR has a set format there is still room for many different styles of writing.
It was expected that TPO’s conducted there own SSR’s and this too involved reading a large quantity of information before an offender was interviewed. My first SSR was as JJ’s shadow and although I am used to interviewing ‘strangers’ I immediately felt the pressure of conducting that interview and then rushing to the appropriate court to deliver your proposal to the court. I felt that I would not be able to handle the pressure of restricted time and that it was not fair to expect a TPO to conduct an SSR and relay it back to the court-essentially we were being thrown in at the deep end. Again I was nervous before I conducted my first interview with CM but simply because I did not want a complicated case and was very wary of the time. I was told that it should take around 30 minutes to conduct an SSR, and although the court team were very supportive and told me not to worry I was still determined to finish it as quickly as possible. On conducting the interview I found the individual in question to be fairly willing to engage and acquired the relevant information needed. There was a discrepancy in that he told me he was on a methadone problem, which I said I could not fully rely on the information provided without proof. However he managed to find letters he received from the Addiction Unit and his GP confirming the authenticity of the information. Having completed my SSR training in May 2004 I could now link what I had learned to a real life situation. After each SSR interview I would then go up to the office and write down what I would relay back to the court. What I found is that my confidence increased after each occasion.
My increased confidence led me to execute a breach, which comprised of a case given to me by CC at the beginning of the placement. She informed us that we did not have to do it but I felt that having already been thrown in at the deep end with everything else why not execute a breach as well. This involved extensive reading of the case, contacting the case manager should any discrepancies arise and accurately recording the relevant information for that breach hearing. This was emphasized by CC in a briefing session for conducting breaches, along with the type of language I would be expected to use and the facts I would present to the bench.
In terms of executing the breach and the SSR recommendations in the courtroom these proved to be very nerve wracking occasions. Before entering the court I verified what I had written to JJ along with my proposed sentence for the offender. My first SSR was the case of MM, who had a history of heroin abuse yet was some way into a methadone programme. I felt that rather than interfere with his methadone programme (whereby he was by all accounts doing very well) he should be subject to a CRO with a condition of ETS, to offer him support whilst he negates his drug addiction. Furthermore I felt that a DTTO would possibly negate the work undertaken on the methadone programme by taking him backwards rather than forwards. At this point however I decided to ring a member of the DTTO team at Waterloo House for advice and they confirmed that MM would have to start at the same point as everyone else regardless of what stage of abstinence he was at. On hearing my reasoning JJ found this to be an appropriate proposal based on the evidence, and so did the magistrates. This was my first relaying of an SSR proposal in court with GP offering support, but from what I can recall all I focused on was maintaining regular eye contact with the magistrates and being clear and concise in what I said. GP validated my aims by afterwards telling me that I was very clear and confident in my speaking.
After conducting my first SSR I felt a little more confident, but in the back of my mind I was well aware that should a difficult case come along I would struggle. The second SSR I carried out, with CG, was another drug related offence. On this occasion I felt that the court needed more information than an SSR could provide, and thus asked for a PSR. The main aim of this request was for CC to be assessed for a DTTO. I feel that these two SSR’s resulted not only in confidence building, but also a developing understanding of how SSR’s were conducted and why. On reflection the use of SSR’s helps to clear the backlog of offenders in the court system by proposing sentences on the day. Of course their use is limited to certain pre-requisites of a case, but nevertheless they are certainly a useful tool within a court environment.
The opportunities to conduct SSR’s were many. However in terms of executing a breach there was only one chance-and I took it. Having read the case I decided that it was fairly straightforward and that this would provide me with the opportunity of addressing the bench in a different capacity – as a breach case rather than an SSR proposal. I discussed what I would say with CC and she offered me some advice on how I should put the facts to the bench. I found this discussion to be very useful in helping me to prepare, yet the added pressure of my PDA being present only added to my apprehension. However having observed the breach court earlier in the placement and gaining confidence from SSR’s I felt confident in my ability to relay the appropriate information in a professional manner. Again I had GP as my supporting officer, whom I sat next to in the court, but when the court sought to clarify certain breach dates I simply referred to the notes I had made and relayed the appropriate information back to the magistrates rather than panicking or looking to GP. The order was allowed to continue which subsequently lead me to contact his Probation Officer and make his next appointment.
Having worked in two different court settings, executing breaches and SSR feedback, I feel there are many fundamental differences that exist between the different types of hearings. The breach court is very much centred around the Probation Service, that is it is their arena and they are prosecuting the breach. In the other courts however the Service is not so much at the forefront, and this mantle is taken by the CPS and defence solicitors. There are many differences that exist between many of the courts, and through observation and experience I have come to acknowledge such variations and to understand why they exist.
Reflecting back I feel that overall there is much to be gained from the experience of a court placement. The skills needed for working in court are that one needs to think on ones feet a lot more and be prepared to work speedily and efficiently, whilst at the same time being aware of what is happening at all times. The court environment provides the trainee with an opportunity to work as a PO in a different arena, and learn the different tasks carried out by these officers. However the highlight of the placement was being able to observe the video link up in the courtroom as this is maybe the future of all court cases. This is something that has occurred through the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act (s. 57), which allows defendants to be escorted to a video court within the prison. I feel it is a step in the right direction for the courts, and that by turning to new technology it should make the courts more efficient and effective.
Copyright(C) 2007
- 2020. All rights reserved.