CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 – NEW SENTENCES AND THE NEW REPORT FRAMEWORK

PURPOSE
To inform probation areas of the new Pre-Sentence Report Framework which will come into force on 4th April 2005.

Probation Circular
REFERENCE NO: 18/2005 ISSUE DATE: 15 March 2005 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: 4 April 2005 EXPIRY DATE: April 2010 TO: Chairs of Probation Boards Chief Officers of Probation Secretaries of Probation Boards CC: Board Treasurers Regional Managers Regional What Works Managers AUTHORISED BY: Liz Hill, Head of the Public Protection and Courts Unit ATTACHED: Annex A: Criminal Justice Act 2003 – New Sentences and the New Report Framework Annex B: Fast Delivery PSR

ACTION
Chief Officers should ensure that the contents of this Circular are implemented on 4th April 2005.

SUMMARY
This guidance attached to this Circular at Annex A outlines the new PSR framework and how it fits with the new sentences. It draws on and is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines and has been put together in consultation with the Magistrates’ Association and other key stakeholders. Martin Narey has approved the Circular which has also been endorsed by the National Sentencer NOMS Consultation Group. Attached at Annex B is the new Fast Delivery PSR which replaces the Same Day Report issued in September last year.

RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC 85/1999; 53/ 2004

CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES
Oliver Dean, 020 7217 0762, oliver.dean@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

National Probation Directorate
Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

Annex A

Criminal Justice Act 2003 – New Sentences and the New Report Framework
1. Introduction 1.1 The introduction of the new sentencing structure in April 2005 represents a radical overhaul of the current framework. The National Probation Service will need to provide accurate and effective reports to the Courts on the new sentences. This document outlines the new Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) framework and how it fits with the new sentences. It draws on and is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) Guidelines. The SGC Guidelines, NPD National Implementation Guide for Community Sentence Provisions and NPD practice directions on the new sentences should be consulted for any detailed information not included here. 1.2 This Guide is split into two sections: Section A – Report Framework: 2. The New Framework 3. Court Directions 4. No PSR Required and Oral reports 5. Report Format 6. OASys Assessment 7. Sentencing Proposal Section B – New Sentences: 8. Community Order 9. Deferred Sentence 10. Suspended Sentence Order (Custody Minus) 11. Intermittent Custody 12. Standard Determinate Sentence of Imprisonment of 12 months or more 13. Public Protection Sentences for Dangerous Offenders

Section A - Report Framework
2. The New Framework 2.1 The legal framework for PSRs is set out in Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Section 158 defines a PSR as: ‘(1) In this Part “pre-sentence report” means a report which(a) with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of dealing with a offender, is made or submitted by an appropriate officer, and (b) contains information as to such matters, presented in such a manner, as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State.‘ 2.2 The Criminal Justice Act also removes the requirement for PSRs to be written. 2.3 The NPS Business Plan 2005-2006 sets the context for the new PSR Framework. The Plan encourages Areas to re-prioritise Court work and sets strengthening the presence of Probation staff in and around the Court as a key priority for next year. Under the Plan, Chief Officers are asked to ensure that good liaison arrangements exist with sentencers and Court staff to make certain that any difficulties in the provision of reports or the wider service to the Court are fully discussed. 2.4 A significant amount of Probation resources goes into the production of PSRs. The NPD has, over the last few years, taken steps to reduce this. In 1999 the Specific Sentence Report (SSR) was introduced. The SSR was supposed to reduce the burden on Probation Areas as a specific limited enquiry report into an offender’s suitability for a particular community sentence. SSRs were intended to be used in many cases in which a full PSR would have been previously. In practice what happened was that sentencers often requested an SSR in cases in which they would previously not have requested a report at all. This had the effect of increasing, not decreasing, the resources that went into producing Court reports. The same must not happen with the introduction of the new PSR Framework. 2.5 Under the Framework we need to ensure that the Courts have a full picture (based on OASys) in the cases that need it, including the more dangerous and prolific offenders, whilst avoiding unnecessarily involved assessment in relatively straight forward cases. With this in mind the Framework is clear that a PSR should only be provided when this makes operational sense and where the Court requests one. The Framework encourages the use of oral reports and Fast Delivery PSRs (this replaces the Same Day Report, see section 5 below) wherever possible and appropriate. 2.6 Although the amount and type of PSRs requested is dependant on sentencers and what they require, we are confident that this Framework, which is in line with SGC Guidelines and has been drawn up in consultation with sentencers, will help reduce the burden on report writers. 3. Court Directions 3.1 When the Court intends to impose a Community Order it is expected to give an initial but specific indication of the seriousness of the offending, (that is, of the current offence(s) and any relevant previous convictions), of Low, Medium or High. If the

Court considers the case to be so serious that the custody threshold has been passed it will likewise make this clear. The sentence imposed must be proportionate to the level of seriousness. 3.2 The Court is also expected to indicate the purpose of sentencing from one or a combination of the following: The punishment of offenders The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence) The reform and rehabilitation of offenders The protection of the public The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offence1 3.3 Sentencers should provide report writers with a written note identifying the seriousness and purpose(s) on a standard format report request form2. When making a proposal for a Community Order these two factors will guide report writers in determining the nature and combination of requirements that may be appropriate and the onerousness and intensity of those requirements. The final PSR sentencing proposal should be consistent with this unless the OASys assessment or screening or any other factors lead the report writer to suggest reasons for a different view of seriousness and recommend that a different sentence might be more appropriate. (See Sections 5 & 6 below). 4. No PSR Required and Oral Reports No PSR Required 4.1 PSRs need only be produced where the Court requests one. The SGC Guideline makes clear that there will be times where a PSR is unnecessary, even when sentencing to a Community Order. The Guideline states that this could be considered when the offence is in the low range of seriousness and where the sentencer is minded to impose a single requirement and where the sentence will not require the involvement of the National Probation Service.3 4.2 Where the sentencer intends only to impose a fine a PSR would be unnecessary. 4.3 In addition, there will be cases where an offender has recently been sentenced, with a PSR, for a similar offence and the sentencer decides on advice from the Probation Service that this PSR can be re-used with a suitable addendum which could be given orally. There may also be an existing OASys assessment to help inform the advice to the Court. Where an offender is held in custody having been convicted of murder a post sentence report would be prepared instead of a PSR, as the offender will be sentenced to a mandatory life sentence. Oral Reports

1.1 - SGC Guideline – Overarching Principles: Seriousness 1.1.16 – SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003 3 1.1.17 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
1 2

4.4 As noted at paragraph 2.2 above, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removes the requirement for PSRs to be written. There will be cases, usually in the low seriousness band, in which the Court only wants a limited amount of information. We would encourage oral reports to be used in these cases, although the screening process outlined at paragraph 6.2 should still be followed. If the sentencer only requires a specific piece of information there is no need to produce a written PSR. 5. Report Format 5.1 Under the new sentencing structure the National Probation Service will have two PSR templates available for use. These two PSRs will provide the Court with the information they need when considering sentence. The key difference between the two reports is the speed with which they are produced and the level and quantity of information they provide. Reports will be selected on the basis of what the Court needs for each individual case Fast Delivery PSR - normally to be completed on the day – this should be our aim whenever possible – but may be completed in up to 5 days, usually without a full OASys Assessment. Standard Delivery PSR - for completion on adjournment based on a full OASys assessment. 5.2 The Fast Delivery PSR is an amended version of the “Same Day Report” template which was issued in September last year with PC53/04. It has been amended to include fields for the Court’s Direction on seriousness and sentencing purpose and is being issued with this Circular. There has not been sufficient time to make this template assistive technology compatible. This will be done at the earliest opportunity. 5.3 The Standard Delivery PSR is the e-OASys template which was deployed nationally in November last year. Not all Areas are using it yet as report writers in some Areas still require IT training and the format has still to be finalised – we expect to have the final version ready in the summer. NPD are assisting Areas in the use of the template by sharing best practice and through the offer of a 3rd pilot database that allows a selected number of report writers in an Area to pilot use of the template. Eventually we will be in a position where all report writers will complete Standard Delivery PSRs through e-OASys. In the interim, Probation Areas are expected to implement the e-OASys template where possible. Experience from Areas that are already using it is that very considerable savings in time are achieved and there are improvements in the quality both of PSRs and OASys assessments. Even if Areas are not yet using it, report writers will need to ensure that all Standard Delivery PSRs have the same section headings and content as the e-OASys template. This should not result in a large step change as these headings are consistent with existing National Standards. They are: Sources of Information Offence Analysis Offender Assessment Assessment of risk of harm to the public and likelihood of re-offending Conclusion

5.4 As a starting principle, where a custodial sentence is being considered by the Court, a Standard Delivery PSR including a full OASys assessment would normally be appropriate. Similarly, in Prolific and other Priority Offenders cases and those involving mental disorder, child protection concerns, sexual offending, some violent offending or racial motivation, report writers should always consider completing a Standard Delivery PSR except where there is a current or very recent OASys which addresses the relevant issues. There are however many ‘custodial cases’ that are straight forward, that do not require this level of analysis, and where a Fast Delivery PSR would be appropriate. And there are, indeed, some custodial cases where sentencers may deem a PSR unnecessary and not request one (for example where a judge is clear that the issue is merely one of sentence length and that he/she needs no Probation Service assistance in deciding this).Taking account of this guidance, report writers will need to use their professional judgement to gauge which type of report is suitable for each individual case. 5.5 For cases where the Court has indicated that it is considering passing a Community Order and requires a PSR, the Court’s direction on seriousness provides the initial trigger for what type of Pre-Sentence Report should be used. The following outlines how this framework would operate: Low Seriousness Cases Unless an Oral Report will suffice, a Fast Delivery PSR should be used in all cases, subject to the OGRS score and risk of harm screening (see section 6 below). Medium Seriousness Cases A Fast Delivery PSR will be appropriate in many cases and will normally be used in those in which the OGRS score is low (less than 41) and the risk of harm screening shows that a full risk analysis is not required. A Standard Delivery PSR should be used in other cases. High Seriousness A Standard Delivery PSR should be used in all cases subject to the OGRS score and risk of harm screening and unless there is a current or recent OASys assessment covering the relevant issues, thereby removing the need to do a full new assessment. 6. OASys Assessment 6.1 This Circular provides guidance on OASys use at PSR stage. See National Standards for OASys use after sentence. 6.2 In all cases in which a PSR is requested, report writers must obtain an OGRS likelihood of reconviction score and complete the OASys Risk of Harm screening tool. Where a full OASys Assessment is completed it will look at likelihood of reconviction, risk of harm and level and type of offending related needs. The OASys assessment may trigger a requirement for further assessments e.g. Risk Matrix 2000, SARA etc. 6.3 In all cases a Basic Skills screening must take place using the screening tools approved by the National Probation Directorate.

6.4 As noted above, when the Court intends to impose a Community Order the report type initially selected should be commensurate with the Court’s initial indication of seriousness. However, following the OGRS score and risk of harm screening it may be that a different report format and therefore level of OASys Assessment would be more appropriate. 6.5 The following is a guide through this process. Please note that this is best practice - what it cannot do is anticipate the particulars of an individual case or the sentencer’s requirements, and professional judgement may, in certain cases, lead to a different course of action. 6.6 One of the key selling points of OASys is its effectiveness, where a rehabilitative outcome is sought, in targeting offenders to the right interventions. Poor targeting will lead to reduced impact from interventions and reduced impact on re-offending. It is important, when a report writer is considering the way forward in light of the guidance below, that this is born in mind. Fast Delivery PSR initially selected If OGRS is low (under 41) and the OASys risk of harm screening shows that a full risk analysis is not required, a Fast Delivery PSR should normally be completed. If OGRS is 41 or over consider requesting an adjournment to complete a Standard Delivery PSR. If the risk of harm screening indicates that a full risk of harm analysis is required, request an adjournment to complete a Standard Delivery PSR If any other factor (such as mental health concerns) comes to the report writer’s attention which suggests that the case requires a full OASys assessment consider requesting an adjournment to complete a Standard Delivery PSR.

-

Standard Delivery PSR initially selected If OGRS is low (under 41) and the OASys risk of harm screening shows that a full risk analysis is not required, consider recommending to the Court that a Fast Delivery PSR is completed instead, without a full OASys assessment. In all other cases a Standard Delivery PSR, following a full OASys assessment, should be completed.

-

7. Sentencing Proposal 7.1 The SGC Guideline states that: “Sentencers should consider all of the disposals available (within or below the threshold passed) at the time of sentence before reaching the provisional decision to make a community sentence, so that even where the threshold for a community sentence has been passed, a financial penalty or discharge may still be an appropriate penalty.”4

4

1.36 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness

And that: “In many cases a pre-sentence report will be pivotal in helping a sentencer decide whether to impose a custodial sentence or whether to impose a community sentence…”5 7.2 This makes clear that sentencers will be looking to the PSR to assist in their sentencing decisions. When the Court has reached a provisional view that a Community Order or custodial sentence is the most appropriate disposal, the sentencer will then look to the PSR. In many cases the PSR sentencing proposal, following assessment of the offender and offending, will concur with the Court’s provisional view. The report writer must then make a sentencing proposal, in the event of it being for a Community Order, drawing on at least one of the twelve model combinations of requirements (given in the Implementation Guide), consistent with the Court’s direction of seriousness range and sentencing purpose(s) and the OASys assessment. 7.3 However, there will be cases where it is appropriate to recommend to the Court that a fine or discharge is considered rather than a Community Order, or a Community Order imposed rather than a custodial sentence. The circumstances in which such a recommendation may be appropriate will vary from case to case but might include cases where: The assessment uncovers mitigating factors which when presented to the Court lead it to conclude that an offender’s culpability is unusually low – such as mental illness or disability, or level of maturity, which would lead to a reassessment of the level of seriousness. Information that the report writer obtains on the offender or their circumstances suggests that another disposal may be a more appropriate means of meeting the purpose of sentence that the Court has asked to be addressed. For example a fine may be a more appropriate punishment than a Community Order, for an offender whom the Court has assessed as being in the low seriousness band of the Community Order but who has personal circumstances such as long working hours combined with a low likelihood of re-offending. An intensive Community Order might be felt to be a more appropriate means of providing punishment than a custodial sentence because of the effect , for example, that a prison sentence might have on the offender’s child care responsibilities, or on their continued employment. In cases in which custody appears to be the most likely or inevitable outcome, an intermittent custody order would represent an alternative means of safeguarding an offender’s responsibilities in relation to childcare, employment or education. The report writer wishes to bring to the Court’s attention evidence on the likelihood of re-offending, specifically relevant to the case, that could result from an inappropriate intervention for an offender assessed as having a low likelihood of re-offending.

-

-

-

-

5

1.1.15 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003

-

The assessment uncovers factors which indicate that the offence is more serious than it was first considered to be and that a more severe sentence would be appropriate.

7.4 When making a sentencing proposal, it is important that report writers bear in mind that sentencers will take account of all sentences available whether within or below the threshold passed. If something comes to the report writer’s attention to indicate that a different type of sentence, from that which the Court was initially intending to impose, would be more appropriate it should be recommended in the PSR sentencing proposal. As report writers will be aware, in such circumstances the final decision will rest with the Court. 7.5 Proposals for Community Orders, in particular those that may impose a range of restrictive requirements, need to take into account the employment and benefit situation of the offender. Attention needs to be given to the potential impact on access to Job Seekers Allowance. Where there is an impact in these areas requirements that do not interfere with either the offenders full-time education or employment or their access to full-time education or employment should be considered. Similarly, in all relevant cases proposals should indicate to the Court the offender’s ability to pay compensation alongside any other sentence imposed. 7.6 It should also be noted that under Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, as amended by Schedule 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, individuals convicted of one of a list of specified sexual and violent offences against a child or supplying Class A drugs to a child are liable to disqualification from working with children. (See Probation Circular 17/2005 - Disqualification Orders). Report writers must advise the Court about consideration of a disqualification order in all cases where a relevant offence has been committed.

Section B – New Sentences
8. The Community Order 8.1 The new Community Order replaces all existing community sentences for adults. An offender would be eligible if he has passed the community sentence threshold. The threshold is crossed if the Court is of the opinion that: the offence, or combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was serious enough to warrant this sentence. 6

8.2 As noted at paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 above it is important that report writers bear in mind that sentencers will take account of all sentences available whether within or below the threshold passed. The SGC Guideline states that: “Sentencers should consider all of the disposals available (within or below the threshold passed) at the time of sentence before reaching the provisional decision to make a community sentence, so that even where the threshold for a community sentence has been passed, a financial penalty or discharge may still be an appropriate penalty.”7 8.3 When writing a PSR for these sentences report writers should follow this process: Court indication of seriousness range and sentencing purpose(s). Report writer uses appropriate report format. Report writer undertakes OASys assessment or screening If the outcome of the assessment or screening suggests a different report may be appropriate, the report writer may ask to adjourn for full assessment or advise the Court that in their opinion a full assessment is not necessary (See section 5 above) The report writer must then make a sentencing proposal drawing on one or more of the twelve possible Requirements consistent with Court direction of seriousness and sentencing purpose. (See Section 6 above).

-

8.4 The SGC guideline gives some examples of the sort of requirements that may be appropriate depending on the seriousness of the offending. It is important to note that the guideline states that for low seriousness cases: “In most cases only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary.” 8 8.5 NPD is developing standardised PSR information sheets for use when preparing PSRs recommending a Community Order. These standardised information sheets (local versions are already in use in many Areas) will outline briefly each of the 12 Community Order Requirements and can be attached as appropriate to a PSR, to

1.34 & 1.35 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness 1.36 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness 8 1.1.27 - SCG Guideline - New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003
6 7

inform sentencers. They are also designed to be helpful to defence lawyers. The sheets will be made available to all Areas in late March. 9. Deferred Sentence 9.1 NPD are currently developing guidance on this sentence. 10. Suspended Sentence Order (“Custody Minus”) 10.1 There are similarities between Custody Minus and the Community Order. In both sentences, one or more of the same 12 requirements must be imposed during the supervision period and the Court can deal with a breach by sending the offender to custody. The crucial difference is that Custody Minus can be imposed only for an offence which passes the custody threshold. (Use of “Custody Minus” instead of “Suspended Sentence Order” is helpful as a reminder of this). The Custody Threshold is passed when: “The Court …is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more of the offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.” 9 10.2 Custody Minus can only apply if the Court is minded to pass a prison sentence of less than 12 months. The custodial sentence can be suspended for between 6 months and 2 years. 10.3 The other significant difference is that, in accordance with the SGC Guideline, because of the very clear deterrent threat involved in Custody Minus, requirements imposed as part of the sentence should generally be less onerous than those imposed as part of an equivalent Community Order. This should be borne in mind when recommending requirements in the PSR.10 10.4 When completing a PSR with a proposal for a Suspended Sentence Order, report writers should follow the same principles when selecting requirements as they would for a Community Order. 10.5 A Standard Delivery PSR, derived from a full OASys assessment, would normally be appropriate. However a Fast Delivery PSR may be used if there is a current or recent OASys assessment covering the relevant issues. 11. Intermittent Custody Orders 11.1 Intermittent custody (IC) was introduced on a pilot basis in January 2004 and extended in March 2005 to incorporate a wider catchment area. 11.2 It is a form of Custody Plus in which the custodial period is served intermittently in order to avoid some of the negative outcomes (loss of employment, accommodation and family break-up), which can accompany even relatively short periods of full-time custody.

9 1.31 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness 10 2.2.14 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003

11.3 During periods in the community, the offender will be under Probation Service supervision. However, the Court can add additional requirements to the sentence, such as a curfew or programme requirement. 11.4 IC is a custodial, not a community sentence and the SGC guideline makes this point clearly: “Intermittent Custody must be used only for offences that have crossed the custodial threshold. It is an alternative to immediate full-time custody and so must meet all the criteria that apply to such a sentence, in particular the need to pass the custody threshold and the need to ensure that the sentence is for the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The prison sentence is not continuous but is interspersed by periods when the offender is released on temporary licence in the community. A Court may only impose intermittent custody if the offender consents to serving the custodial part of the sentence intermittently. The Court must also make sure that the relevant resources are available in the local area and must consult the Probation Service to confirm that the offender is an appropriate candidate for such a sentence.”11 11.5 The custodial part of an IC sentence may be served either at weekends or on weekdays. Weekend IC is served from Friday evening until Sunday evening. This period counts as three custody days. Weekend IC will generally be most suitable for offenders in full-time employment or education or with full-time caring responsibilities. Weekday custody is likely to be an option for unemployed offenders who wish to maintain family and community links. It is served either from Monday to Thursday or Tuesday to Friday each week. This period counts as four custody days. This arrangement will enable an offender to undertake Probation interviews, Jobcentre Plus appointments and other community activity. 11.6 As a general rule, IC is not suitable for those convicted of sex offences, serious offences of violence or domestic burglary. Suitable offenders will normally present a low risk of serious harm, but some medium risk offenders will also be suitable. It follows that IC may be appropriate in cases of violence or burglary where the risk assessment shows that the offender falls into the lower or medium risk category in terms of risk to the public. 11.7 The level of compliance on the part of offenders sentenced to IC has been exceptionally high, reflecting a positive response to the sentence. However, as the SGC Guideline makes clear, IC is a demanding sentence: “The demands made on the offender by this sentence will generally be considerably greater than for a custodial sentence to be served immediately in full. The disruptive effect on family life, the psychological impact of going in and out of custody and the responsibility on the offender to travel to and from the custodial establishment on many occasions all make the sentence more onerous.”12 11.8 Nevertheless, the evidence from the first year of the pilot is that offenders have welcomed the opportunity offered by IC to maintain family contact and

11 12

2.3.6 -2.3.7 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003 2.3.13 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003

responsibilities, and to preserve their jobs. As a result, offenders have generally coped well with the logistical demands of IC. 11.9. A Standard Delivery PSR, derived from a full OASys assessment, would normally be appropriate. However a Fast Delivery PSR may be used if there is a current or recent OASys assessment covering the relevant issues. 12. Standard Determinate Sentence of Imprisonment of 12 months or more 12.1 Where a determinate prison sentence of 12 months or more is imposed the offender will be released from custody after completing half of the sentence. The second half of the sentence will be subject to licence supervision in the community. Every licence will contain six standard conditions. Additional conditions can be set by the Secretary of State, on advice from the Probation Service, and will address any continuing needs/risks following the custodial period. The Court will be able to make recommendations for additional conditions at the sentencing stage. 12.2 When preparing a PSR on an offender who is likely to receive a standard determinate sentence the report writer should assess the risks and treatment needs and how these could be addressed during the whole sentence. The Court can use this information in the decision on sentence length. The Offender Manager responsible for the offender pre-release is best placed to assess what additional licence conditions may be appropriate in managing the offender post release, following any progress made by the offender in custody. 12.3 The SGC Guideline states: “When passing such a sentence the Court will not know with any certainty to what extent the offender’s behaviour may have been addressed in custody or what the offender’s health and other personal circumstances might be on release so it will be extremely difficult, especially in the case of longer custodial sentences, for sentencers to make an informed judgment about the most appropriate licence conditions to be imposed on release.”13 12.4 There will of course be cases where the Court wishes to make specific recommendations about conditions at sentencing stage, particularly when passing a relatively short sentence or in cases where the offender has already served most of the custodial half of his sentence whilst remanded in custody.The PSR should address these in order that the Court can consider making a recommendation. 12.5 If it is clear that the Court is likely to impose a standard determinate sentence of 12 months or more, a Standard Delivery PSR with a full OASys assessment will normally be appropriate. 13. Public Protection Sentences for Dangerous Offenders 13.1 Dangerous offenders, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are those who have been convicted of a specified offence and who are assessed as presenting a significant risk of harm through the commission of further such offences. 13.2 A Standard Delivery PSR with a full OASys assessment will be required in every case in which one of the new Public Protection sentences is likely.
13

2.1.12 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003

13.3 The OASys Risk of Harm assessment should address the “assessment of dangerousness” that the Court is required to make: “whether there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences”.14 The Court will assume that there is such a risk where the offender, at the time the offence was committed, was aged 18 or over and had been convicted in any part of the UK of one or more ‘relevant offences’ (specified offences covering England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) unless it considers that such a conclusion is unreasonable. 13.4 In all cases, whether there are relevant pre-convictions or not, where the Court judges that the offender (aged 18 or over) presents a significant risk, the appropriate public protection sentence must be imposed. In such cases: the Sentence of Imprisonment (Detention) for Public Protection must be imposed where the offender is convicted of a serious specified offence. Under the Imprisonment (Detention) for Public Protection sentence the Court sets a minimum term which will be served before the Parole Board considers whether it is safe to release the offender. After release the offender remains on licence for at least 10 years. the Extended Sentence for Public Protection must be imposed where the offender is convicted of a specified offence. It must be for at least 12 months but cannot be for longer than the maximum sentence for the offence. The Court must specify a custodial period and an extension period (during which the offender will remain on licence). From the halfway point of the custodial period the offender may be released if the Parole Board determines it is safe to do so, but release will not be automatic until the end of the custodial period. After release, the offender remains on licence for the unexpired term of the original sentence (if any) and for an extended period of licence designated by the Court when imposing sentence. the Life Sentence remains where the offender is convicted of an offence that carries a maximum penalty of life and the Court is of the opinion that the seriousness of the offences warrants a life sentence.

-

-

13.5 The PSR writer must first establish the sentence for which the offender is eligible i.e. whether the conviction is for a specified, or serious specified offence. The PSR must provide information, analysis and assessment on: the nature and circumstances of the offence; any pattern of behaviour of which the offence forms a part; the offender.

The Court will take into account this information in its judgement of dangerousness and consequent sentencing decision. 13.6 Given that the Court’s decision on whether to impose a public protection sentence, or standard determinate sentence, rests on a judgement of significant risk of serious harm posed by the offender through further offending, the PSR must make

14

s. 229 Criminal Justice Act 2003

a rigorous assessment of the likelihood of re-offending and the potential seriousness of its impact. Report writers must assess as usual: the seriousness of the offence; the pattern of previous behaviour and offending; the risk of harm and likelihood of re-offending.

13.7 After considering all the information before it, including the PSR, if the Court judges that there is not a significant risk, or it is unreasonable to conclude that such a risk exists, the offender can be sentenced in another way. 13.8 The PSR proposal in terms of the type, or length, should be clearly based on the assessment of significant risk, and how that risk can be treated, minimised or controlled. 13.9 As noted at 13.2 above, a Standard Delivery PSR with OASys is required in all cases where a Public Protection sentence is likely.

Fast Delivery Pre-Sentence Report
This is a Pre-Sentence Report as defined in Section 158 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Standard for PreSentence Reports.

XXX Area THIS REPORT IS A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT OFFENDER’S DETAILS:
Name:
(First name then family name)

Date of Birth: Address:

Age:

Post Code: Telephone Number: CRN Case Reference Number: PNC ID Number:

COURT DETAILS:
Sentencing Court: Date of Hearing: Petty Sessional Area: Date Report Requested:

OFFENCE DETAILS:
Offence(s) (dealt with in this PSR): Date of Offence(s):

Court Directions
Seriousness: Sentencing Purpose(s): Low Medium High N/A or not stated

PSR WRITER’S DETAILS:
Name: Official Title: Office Location: Date report completed and signed:
Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 1 of 5

Tel No:

© National Probation Service

1. Sources of Information
Interview CPS Summary Previous convictions Service records Previous OASys Assessment Other (please specify)

………………………………………………….

2. Offence Analysis
Please provide a (very) brief outline of the offence(s): ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Why did the offence(s) occur? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Offender accepts responsibility for offending? Yes No Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Offender recognises the impact and consequences of offence(s) on victim(s)? Yes No In part Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Offender recognises the impact and consequences of offence(s) on the community? Yes No In part Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Anti-social/discriminatory attitudes/behaviour associated with offending? Yes No N/A Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Current offence(s) part of an established pattern of offending? Yes No Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Current offence(s) indicate escalation in seriousness of offending behaviour? Yes No Please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41

Page 2 of 5

© National Probation Service

3. Offender Assessment
Accommodation Is accommodation relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No Please provide details, where appropriate: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Education, training and employment Are education, training, employment and/or basic skills relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No Please provide details, where appropriate: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Financial management and income Are finances relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No Please provide details, where appropriate: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Drug/Alcohol Misuse: Is drug/alcohol misuse linked to offending behaviour? Is there lack of motivation to tackle drug/alcohol misuse? Is drug misuse and obtaining drugs a major activity? Is past drug/alcohol misuse history a relevant issue? If “yes” to any of above please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Mental Health: Is mental health linked to offending behaviour? Does the offender have a history of mental health issues? Is a specialist report required? Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

If “yes” to any of above please provide details: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41

Page 3 of 5

© National Probation Service

Additional Information about the Offender relevant to the offence(s) and the management of the offender:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Risk of Harm and Likelihood of Reconviction
The Risk of Harm Screening assessment indicates no reason for undertaking a full Risk of Harm analysis. Yes No

If there is a medium or high risk, state why an adjournment for a full assessment is NOT required (e.g. if a recent and relevant OASys assessment is available): ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… The Likelihood of Re-Conviction is assessed as Low. Yes No

If the likelihood is medium or high, state why an adjournment for a full assessment is NOT required: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Sentencing Options and Proposal
Proposal and reasons, if a Community Order is proposed it will contain the following individual Requirements and their objectives:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41

Page 4 of 5

© National Probation Service

Offender’s Attitude to proposed community sentence:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Signature: …………………………………………. Name: ………………………………………………

Date: …………………………….

Outcome
Sentence of the court: …………………………………………………………………………………………… Comments: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41

Page 5 of 5

© National Probation Service