9
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3 Pre-Sentence Reports – Practice Guidance
Introduction
3.1 Who can write PSRs?
3.2 Legislation
3.3 When is a PSR required?
3.4 Disclosure of PSR
3.5 Process of PSR
3.5.1 In court
3.5.2 At the YOS
3.5.3 Sources of Information should include:
3.5.4 Process for completion – Connectivty
3.5.5 Process for completion – General
3.5.6 Copies should be made available at court to
3.5.7 Differences for Crown Court
3.6 National standards
3.7 Format
3.8 Sources of Information
3.9 Offence Analysis
3.9.1 Offence Seriousness
3.9.2 Negative Assertion
3.9.3 Offence Denial
3.9.4 Basis of Plea
3.9.5 Victims
3.10 Assessment of Young Person
3.10.1 Previous Convictions
3.10.2 Persistent and PPO Offenders
3.10.3 Personal Circumstances
3.10.4 Assessment of Parenting
3.10.5 Vulnerability
3.11 Assessment of Risk to the Community
3.11.1 CJA 2003 Dangerousness and Sentences for Public Protection
3.11.2 Agreed Wording for Assessments of Dangerousness
3.12 Conclusion
3.12.1 Proposal
3.12.2 The YJB Scaled Approach
3.12.3 Supervision Plans
3.12.4 Parenting
3.12.5 Pre-court panels for ‘cusp of custody’ cases
3.13 Good Practice Issues
3.14 Gatekeeping
3.15 Addressing breach of YRO and other orders in a PSR with or without other new offences
3.15.1 PSR Front sheet – under the “Offences” heading:
3.15.2 Sources of Information
3.15.3 Offence Analysis
3.15.4 Assessment of Young Person
3.15.5 Risk Section
3.15.6 Conclusion
3.15.7 Straightforward breaches – no new offending
3.15.8 PSRs for breaches where there are also new offences
3.15.9 Sentencing Restrictions
3.15.10 In all cases of revocation and resentence – with a breach and / or new
offences, it is essential that the details of the court’s decision are recorded
fully and accurately.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
10
Appendix 1 PSR Template
Appendix 2 Dangerousness
Appendix 3 The Scaled Approach Table
Appendix 4 Parenting
Appendix 5 Addendum template with guidance notes
Appendix 6 Deferred Sentence Report template with guidance notes
Appendix 7 Gatekeeping
Appendix 8 Miscellaneous – Legislation
Appendix 9 Wording for ISS Proposals
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
11
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Introduction
A Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) is a full formal assessment provided to the court in
order to assist the magistrates or judge in passing the most suitable sentence on
the young person.
Section 156 of the CJA 2003 defines a PSR as:
A report which –
(a) with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable method of
dealing with an 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.
This legislation was amended by section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2008 to add that, before imposing a custodial sentence, the court must have
obtained and considered a written PSR.
While ‘Pre-Sentence Report’ usually means the full written report with standard
headings, as described in the YJB National Standards 2009, by this definition, a
Specific Sentence Report, a Reparation Order Report and any other written report
would also be classed as Pre-Sentence Reports. These types of report are dealt with
elsewhere in this policy document.
All reports must be:
• Balanced;
• Impartial;
• Timely;
• Focused;
• Free from discriminatory language and stereotypes;
• Verified and factually accurate;
• Understandable to the young person and his or her parents/carers.
(YJB National Standards 2009)
3.1 Who can write PSRs?
The CJA 2003 Section 158 (2) states that where the offender is under 18 a PSR
is to be written by an officer of a local Probation Board, a Social Worker of a local
authority Social Services department or a member of a Youth Offending Team.
Whilst any member of a Youth Offending Team may write a PSR it is the view of
Kent YOS that this task should only be undertaken by those officers who:
• have undertaken relevant training, and
• have been assessed by their line manager as being capable of the task, and
• receive adequate support and supervision from their manager and designated colleagues.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
12
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.2 PSR Legislation
S. 44 of the Children and Young person’s Act 1933 sets out the ‘Welfare Principle’
whereby the court has a duty to consider the welfare of the child or young person.
Despite the many changes in legislation since 1933 this principle still stands.
Additionally, the courts are required by s9 of the Children and Young Person’s
Act 1969 to make investigations and provide information relating to the home
surroundings, school record, health and character of the child or young person
appearing before a criminal court.
Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 r44.2 makes reference to s9 of the CYPA 1969 in
placing an obligation on the youth court to consider the background of the young
offender, including all the available information as to the general conduct, school
record and medical history of the relevant minor. Where such information is not fully
available, the court must consider the desirability of adjourning the proceedings for
such inquiry as may be necessary.
On many occasions sufficient information will be available to the court from the
young person, his/her parents or carers, the defence solicitor and Crown Prosecution
Service records. When additional information is required it may be provided by the
Youth Offending Team either verbally or in one of the various report formats.
Relevant information about sentencing, reports, seriousness, definitions and criteria
can be found at S 142 – 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (as amended by s 12
of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008)
The YJB National Standards 2009 give guidance as to PSR timescales and format.
3.3 When is a PSR required?
While information should be sought on the young person in any case where it is
thought necessary, a full PSR is required in certain circumstances. These are
explained in the CJA 2003 S.156.
With regard to custody a written PSR is required before
• Forming an opinion that the offence, or combination of the offence and one or
more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a
community sentence can be justified for the offence
• Determining the appropriate length of a custodial sentence
• Concluding that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious
harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences
(“dangerousness”).
With regard to community sentences a PSR is required before
• Forming an opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more
offences associated with it, was serious enough to warrant a community sentence
• Determining what restrictions on liberty are commensurate with the seriousness of
the offence(s).
• Determining the suitability of the offender for the particular requirement(s) to be
imposed in a community order.
A PSR is not required before the imposition of:
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
13
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• Absolute Discharge
• Conditional Discharge
• Fine or Compensation Order
• Referral Order, unless it is a ‘threshold of custody’ case
For adults the above requirements as to obtaining reports do not apply if the court
considers it unnecessary to consider a report. For youths, however, a report must
be obtained unless the court has obtained and considered a previous report. In this
instance ‘report’ can mean a full PSR or any form of SSR.
A decision will have to be made on a case by case basis as to the appropriateness
of using an old PSR. Bear in mind that the main focus of the PSR is an analysis of
the offending and the suitability for a particular disposal; if the information in the old
PSR is out of date and could mislead the court then it would be preferable to write a
completely new PSR.
3.4 Disclosure of PSRs
A PSR is a document that is owned by the YOS – the YOS manager is the data
controller - and is prepared for the court. Copies of the PSR should not be given
to anyone other than the court and its officers: CPS, defence, legal advisor.
The young person is entitled to see a copy of the report, and should be shown a copy
in advance of the hearing. Consider carefully whether it would be appropriate for the
young person to be given a copy of the PSR to keep as there is likely to be sensitive
information which needs to be treated and stored with care. Any requests from other
individuals or agencies to have a copy of the PSR should be discussed with, and
authorised by, a manager. In most cases it will be sufficient to extract the relevant
information rather than to give a copy of the whole PSR.
Disclosure of reports is dealt with in s159 of the CJA 2003 and applies to all
written reports.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
14
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Copies of the report should be made available to:
• The court
• The young person or his counsel or solicitor
• If the young person is aged under 18, to his parent or guardian present in court, and
• To the prosecutor.
If the young person is aged under 18 and it appears to the court that the disclosure
to the young person, or to any parent or guardian of his of any information contained
in the report would be likely to create a risk of significant harm to the offender, a
complete copy of the report need not be given to the offender, or as the case may be,
to the parent of guardian.
Reports given to the prosecutor are only for the purpose of enabling the prosecutor to
make representations to the court about matters contained in the report; they are not
to be used or retained by the prosecutor for any other purpose. (CJA 2003 S. 159 (5))
While the Act says that a copy of the report need only be given to the parent or
guardian who is present in court, it would be the normal practice of Kent YOS to
show both parents a copy of the report prior to the court hearing; unless there were
good reasons for not doing so.
The Data Protection Act, the Crime and Disorder Act s 115, the Human Rights Act
and other guidance on sharing information, all state that personal and sensitive
information must be used only for the purpose for which it was obtained; in the case
of a PSR or other court report, the information was obtained to assist the court
in sentencing the young person. The report must be kept confidential unless it is
necessary to share it in order to prevent or detect crime, or there is an overriding
public interest in sharing the information. See Kent YOS policy on Information
Sharing for further details.
3.5 Process for PSR
3.5.1In court
• Court officer completes PSR request form at court
• Include as much information as possible, especially telephone numbers
• Obtain preliminary assessment of seriousness from court. While the court must
not form an opinion as to whether the offences are ‘serious enough to warrant
a community sentence’ or ‘so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community
sentence can be justified’ until after it has obtained and considered the report, it is
usual for a court to give an indication of its initial view of seriousness. This will be
of assistance to the PSR author without binding the hands of the sentencing court.
The YOS court officer must make an accurate note of any view expressed by the
court and request clarification where necessary.
• Magistrates may complete a form with reasons for the report – YOS should get a
copy of this – or will give their reasons verbally.
• It can be very helpful to make notes on the back of the PSR request form while the
prosecutor is reading out the facts of the case
• Court officer obtains or requests advance disclosure from the prosecutor
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
15
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• Court officer speaks with young person, parents/carer to explain what PSR involves
and if possible, gives first appointment.
• Give PSR information leaflet
3.5.2 At the YOS
• Once allocated, PSR author contacts young person to make appointment
3.5.3 Sources of Information should include:
• Young person – minimum of 1 interview
• Parents or primary carer – at least 1 interview
• Home Visit (following completion of address checks by YOS Police Officer)
• Asset assessment
• ROSH assessment for all ‘specified offences’ (CJA 2003) or any other
circumstances which warrant the completion of a ROSH
• ISS Assessment report
• School – if young person is of school age or has only recently left, or if education
background is particularly relevant
• Education Department, e.g. EWO, home tutor, Educational Psychologist, exclusions
officer etc
•Employer – if relevant and with the young person’s permission
•Social Worker
• Any other relevant person such as doctor, counsellor, youth worker
• YOS records, previous supervising officer, previous reports
• Advance disclosure, statements etc
• Victim Personal Statement or direct contact with victim or via victim officer or
Reparation Service Provider
• Defence solicitor. This is particularly important when confirming a ‘basis of plea’ or
any other aspect of the facts of the case, evidence and legal issues.
3.5.4 Process for completion – Connectivty
• Complete PSR Asset on Careworks and alert team manager and practice
supervisor for quality assurance.
• Information can be pulled through from Asset to the PSR document
• Information must be edited to ensure only that which is relevant to the PSR is retained.
• Ensure that the format, wording, grammar, style and flow of the PSR is appropriate
for presentation at court.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
16
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.5.5 Process for completion – General
• The gatekeeping manager must agree all cases where the short form of wording for
the assessment of dangerousness has been used. See section 3.11.2 for details
For all cases where a YRO with Intensive Supervision Surveillance is under
consideration the PSR author must liaise with the ISS team to carry out the relevant
assessment of the young person and reflect this in the PSR
• Use PSR ‘gatekeeping’ checklist.
• Team manager or practice supervisor to ‘gatekeep’ report
• Reports should be typed 2 working days before court
• It is good practice to share a copy of the report with the young person and parents/carers before court
3.5.6 Copies should be made available at court to
• Young person
• Parents (with the young person’s consent)
• Defence solicitor
• Prosecutor
• Magistrates/Judge
• Court legal adviser
• Secure establishment if custodial sentence received
3.5.7 Differences for Crown Court
Young people may be sentenced in the Crown Court if:
• The offence is a ‘Grave Crime’ (Carries 14 years or more in the case of an adult
over 21) and the youth court has declined jurisdiction and committed it to the Crown Court
• The youth court has determined that the young person meets the criteria of a
‘dangerous offender’ as set out in s 229 of the CJA 2003
• The youth has been jointly charged with an adult who has elected Crown Court trial
or been committed there for sentence.
Due to the likely seriousness of the offences it would be expected that the young
person will be interviewed on at least two occasions and that the fullest possible
information will have been sought. As cases generally take longer to reach the Crown
Court there is usually ample time to make extensive enquiries in preparation of the
report. The exception to this would be when a young person indicates a Not Guilty
plea, in which case the preparations cannot be made until conviction; when normal
National Standard timescales would apply.
In addition to the usual contacts there should be liaison with both the defence
solicitor and the barrister. Ensure that the barrister is given all the relevant information
about youth sentencing options and powers and fully understands your proposal. In
particular, make sure that the Court will be aware that the adult community order is
not available for youths – despite what it appears to say in the CJA 2003, this part of
the legislation has not been enacted.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
17
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Six copies of the report should be sent to the Crown Court Liaison Officer at least
three days before the case is listed.
In Crown Court reports the young person should be referred to by their first name to
emphasise the need for a child centred approach.
3.6 National standards
The timescales for preparing PSRs are set out in National Standards 2009 as follows:
• PSRs must be prepared within 15 working days of the request
Please note that the new National Standards 2009 no longer include any definition
of ‘persistent offender’ in relation to PSR timescales or any other purpose. The
term ‘persistent offender’ is still relevant to certain sentencing powers but is not
defined in legislation. For further guidance see the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s
Overarching Principles of Sentencing – Youths (available on their website).
It is good practice to inform the court of the planned first appointment of a proposed
order whenever this is possible. National Standards 2009 state that for all court
orders the responsible officer should make initial contact with the young person by
the end of the next working day following sentence.
3.7 Format
A standard template for PSRs, including front sheet and headings, as set out in
National Standards 2009 is to be used at all times throughout the Kent YOS.
The template is attached at Appendix 1.
For young people who are in custody (sentenced or remanded) the address should
be their normal home address, not the address of the custodial establishment.
Offences must be listed accurately with the full wording from the relevant Act;
this can be taken from the charge sheet
To underline the fact that the report is written on behalf of the Youth Offending Team,
following this guidance, using standard assessment tools and in consultation
with YOS colleagues, the report author’s name should appear with the title
“Youth Offending Officer”.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
18
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.8 Sources of Information
This should summarise all the sources of information used in preparing the report.
It can be written as a paragraph or a list. Consider the clarity of the information
presented; in most cases, where several sources are cited, a bullet pointed list will
make for easier reading.
• Number of interviews with young person (must be at least 1)
• Number of interviews with parent or primary carer (must be at least 1)
• Asset completed including the Asset What Do You Think to be completed by the
young person
• ROSH completed - where applicable
• Access to advance disclosure and Victim Personal Statements
• Victim contact – specify by whom and what type
• Contact with defence solicitor
• Contact with education establishment/department
• Contact with others: e.g. social services, GP, etc.
• Discussed proposal with YOS colleagues, including ISS where appropriate
• Whether young person has seen report, and if not, when he/she will see it
• Any gaps in information.
• Any initial indication of seriousness given by the court when ordering the report.
When ordering a PSR the court will usually give some indication as to the
seriousness with which it views the offences, and whether a custodial sentence
is under consideration. Any view expressed by the court at this stage is only a
preliminary, non-binding, initial assessment. The legislation (CJA 2003 section
156 (3) (a) and (b)) specifically prohibits the court from forming an opinion as to the
seriousness of the offence(s) until after it has obtained and considered the PSR.
The YOS court officer must be sure that any views expressed by the court are
recorded accurately on the PSR request sheet. The PSR author needs to include any
comments made by the court when ordering the report but word this to show that it
is the initial view or preliminary assessment and not a statement of fact. If the court
has made reference to the legal phrases “serious enough to warrant a community
sentence” or “so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can
be justified” be sure to quote these in full and not use abbreviated jargon (“serious
enough” or “so serious”). Again, make sure these are phrased to show that they are
only the court’s initial view that the offences might be....., and not statements of fact.
The PSR is a legal document and as such it is essential that all information used in
preparing the report is properly identified or referenced.
When obtaining information from third parties ensure that they know the purpose
of your enquiry, that they give permission for their information to be included in the
report and that you have represented them accurately.
Advance Disclosure (including the Victim Personal Statement) should be
provided by the Crown Prosecution Service. The report must state whether these
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
19
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
documents have been received, and if not, whether they had in fact been requested.
Where they are provided by defence solicitors this should be noted as, although this
is very helpful, it is not the job of the defence to provide advance disclosure.
An Asset assessment must be completed for all PSRs. The purpose of the Asset
in this case is to assist in analysing the offending, ascertain the risk and protective
factors and identify the areas for intervention, thus aiding making of the proposal.
The proposal should also take account of the YJB Scaled Approach regarding the
content of any order proposed and the expected level of contact for referral orders
and YRO with supervision requirement. This can only be done if the Asset score
and Risk Of Serious Harm level are calculated first. The Sources of Information
must state that the Asset has been completed, but in order to avoid jargon the
following wording is suggested:
I have completed an assessment using the Youth Justice Board assessment tool “Asset”.
Note that the YJB National Standards 2009 also state that the young person should
complete the Asset What Do You Think form as part of the assessment.
Reference should be made to consultation with YOS colleagues. This ensures that
all PSRs and proposals are written with the agreement of the YOS and not from an
entirely individual perspective. Any YOS Officer presenting a PSR in court should
feel confident that the assessments have been made using the appropriate tools
and proposals have been made with due consideration of the sentencing framework
and the YJB Scaled Approach. PSR authors should feel confident that whatever the
outcome of the case they have the support of the YOS for the content of the report.
This will only be possible if correct procedures have been followed and appropriate
consultations have taken place.
If the young person is represented by a defence solicitor, contact should be made in
all cases, but this will be particularly important in any case where a ‘basis of plea’ has
been accepted by the court or where there was a conviction following a trial.
3.9 Offence Analysis
Including impact of the offence on victim(s).
This section should highlight key features of the offence(s) and its circumstances
which are relevant to a judgement about the nature and seriousness of the offence
The court will have already heard the facts of the case; this section must not simply
re-tell the story of what happened, it must analyse the information. However, it is
not helpful to simply state “the court is aware of the facts of the offence” - you need
to give a brief account of events to set the context of the offence.
As the court is concerned with an assessment of seriousness, it is usually best
to analyse the most serious offence in the greatest detail first, and then to make
comment on additional offences and how these may be similar to or different from
the main offence. Offences may, however, be analysed in chronological order if that
is necessary to assist understanding of a sequence of events.
It is usually helpful to begin the Offence Analysis with a brief introduction commenting
on such things as the number and type of offences, the length of time since the
offences and/or the period of time in which they took place, whether there was
an early guilty plea, a basis of plea or a finding of guilt at trial. Remember to be
analytical and specific rather than descriptive and general. This introduction helps
to set the scene for the more detailed analysis which will follow.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
20
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The offence analysis needs to address the following:
• Why the offender committed the offence at this time
• Acknowledge and, if necessary, reassess the court’s initial view of seriousness
• Offence related aggravating and mitigating factors (Do not use the words
“aggravating” or “mitigating” in the PSR.)
• Assessment of young person’s culpability, including their relative maturity and level
of understanding, including the impact of any mental health problems, learning
disabilities /difficulties, speech, language and communication needs.
• Premeditation/planning
• Context of offence
• Link or pattern with other offences, current and previous
• Assess consequences of the offence including the impact on the victim
• Young person’s attitude to victim, offence and its consequences
• Acceptance/minimisation of responsibility
• Desire to make amends and any action taken to make amends
The most important function of this section of a PSR is for the writer to assist the
court by analysing why the young person has offended in this way, in this context,
at this time. Report writers have not always found this form of assessment easy
and there has been a tendency for reports to rely purely on repeating details of the
offence obtained from the young person or the prosecution. It is important that the
young person’s version of events is referred to, but the purpose of doing so is to
inform the analysis by the PSR writer, which should be the crux of this section of the
PSR. The admission or finding of guilt is based on the facts as presented (or agreed
in a ‘basis of plea’) by the prosecution and this is the version of events on which the
young person will be sentenced. See additional notes below on ‘basis of plea’ and
dealing with denial in PSRs at 3.9.3 and 3.9.4.
Features of the offences which are likely to affect a judgement about seriousness
should be addressed to assist the court in making its final assessment of
seriousness. The report should include reference to both aggravating and
mitigating factors relating to the offence and the offender. Note that the actual terms
‘aggravating’ and ‘mitigating’ should not be used in the PSR. The primary purpose
of the offence analysis is to assist the court in determining whether the offences are
‘so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified’, or
‘serious enough to warrant a community sentence’, or indeed, whether the offences
fall below the threshold for a community sentence and can be dealt with by a fine,
discharge or Reparation Order. It is for the court to decide how serious the offences
are but the analysis in the report is necessary to assist with this.
Previous convictions will usually be aggravating factors where they are both
recent and relevant. (CJA 2003 s 143 (2) (a) and (b).) Information about previous
convictions which is relevant to the current pattern of offending can be included in
this section. Other information about orders received and response to intervention
should be included in the section on Assessment of Young Person.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
21
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.9.1 Offence Seriousness
In order to decide which sentencing band (custody, community or below) the offences
fall into, the court must assess their seriousness. Each offence has a starting point,
sometimes known as the ‘offence gravity’. How far the offence moves from its
initial starting point - the seriousness of the offence - will depend upon the various
aggravating and mitigating factors relating to it.
The most serious offence will usually carry the most weight in the overall assessment
and should therefore be analysed in the PSR in the greatest detail, and usually
before other less serious offences. TICs (offences Taken Into Consideration) should
be noted, along with a brief explanation of similarities to the main charge(s), relevant
timescales or episodes of offending, voluntary admissions and any other information
relevant to the overall offence analysis. There is no need, however, to identify and
analyse each TIC separately.
The legislation for determining the seriousness of an offence is set out in the CJA
2003 at ss143 - 146. Further guidance for courts is provided by the Sentencing
Guidelines Council’s guide to seriousness and the Overarching Principles of
Sentencing – Youths. The main factors to consider are:
• offence related aggravating factors: (planning, weapons, high value, serious injury,
targetted vulnerable victim, racist or other discriminatory motive, group attack,
unprovoked, link with drugs or alcohol etc)
• offence related mitigating factors: (opportunistic, low value, goods recovered, minor
injuries, led by others, provocation, etc)
• offender related aggravating factors: (offence committed on bail or RILAA, recent
and relevant previous convictions)
• offender related mitigating factors: (early guilty plea, previous convictions not recent
and relevant, previous good character, other personal mitigation
The following list includes some of the aggravating and mitigating factors which may
affect offence seriousness and which should be considered in the PSR. Full analysis
of these factors will enable an offence to ‘move’ from its initial starting point, within
that sentencing band, or across the threshold into another band altogether.
It is the court’s job to assess seriousness but the analysis in the PSR is necessary to
assist the court in doing this. Do not tell the court how seriously an offence should be
viewed, and do not present any views on seriousness as if they were fact; however,
the PSR should highlight the factors which are relevant to assessing seriousness and
present a convincing argument in favour of a particular view of the offences.
The following is not an exhaustive list. For further information see the
Sentencing Guidelines Council’s guidance to courts on seriousness at
www.sentencing-guidelilnes.gov.uk
Offence characteristics
• Category of offence, whether violent/sexual or non-violent
• Amount of violence used, manner of infliction, whether sadistic, degree of injury,
physical and mental effect on victim
• Whether weapon carried or used, whether carried before offence or used because
it was to hand
• Value of property stolen or damaged, impact of loss or damage on victim, whether
property recovered
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
22
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• Degree and length of bad driving, whether attempt to escape when chased by
police, whether failed to stop after causing an accident
• Class and value of drugs, whether intention to supply
Characteristics of victim
• Whether vulnerable, e.g. child, elderly, infirm, disabled, and whether deliberately targeted
• Whether offence was motivated by discriminatory beliefs
• Whether abuse of trust, relationship or position
• Whether victim of attack was public servant
• Whether there are any other factors relevant to power issues.
Intention and motive
• Degree of harm intended and whether planned, professional, premeditated, or
spontaneous, impulsive
• Whether aware or unaware of likely damage or effect on victim
• Whether provoked
• Whether racial or other discriminatory motivation
• Whether any good elements in offender’s motive
• Mental state
• Degree of duress, pressure or stress on offender
Role in offence
• Ringleader, instigator or minor role
• Whether organised group offence or acting alone
• Whether adult involved children/younger people in the offence
Location and time
• Whether in a public place or crowded location, frightening or upsetting onlookers
• Whether burglary during hours of darkness or during the day, whether victim in
house or house unoccupied, whether burglary of pharmacy or doctor’s surgery
Gain to offender
• Whether offender benefited considerably or little
• Use to which proceeds put – to provide necessities or to indulge lavish lifestyle
Alcohol/drugs
• Role of alcohol or drugs in the offence. Usually these will make it more serious but
look for valid exceptions
Prevalence
• Whether offences of this kind are prevalent in the area.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
23
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.9.2 Negative Assertion in Reports
Reports are legal court documents. The information must be factually accurate and,
wherever possible, verified. Where information cannot be verified this must be clearly
stated. Similarly, reports must distinguish between fact and opinion.
Evidence is something you know happened because you saw or heard it yourself.
Anything else must be qualified by stating who told you or how you know the
information. All sources of information for the report must be noted in the Sources
of Information section.
Information which is not verified, and which you do not know first hand, is hearsay.
The dictionary defines hearsay as ‘gossip’. You must always explain the status of any
information you include, its origins and its relevance/significance for the case.
Be very careful about information, usually coming from the young person or others,
which is negative about other people. This includes a young person saying it was
his friend’s idea to steal the car, a parent saying that a particular friend is always up
to no good, or that a victim provoked an assault – in all these cases the information
should usually only be included if it is an established fact of the case. For example,
the information was in the advance disclosure from CPS or was given in open court.
If the person the negative information relates to is not going to be at court, and will
not be entitled to see the report and defend themselves against the negative remark,
it should not usually be included.
Information on codefendants will usually be known to the court from the CPS facts
or defence mitigation given in open court. All young people in court are entitled to
know who their codefendants are. Check whether the information given to you by
the young person, or others, for the report, is already known to the court or is new
information (Check this with CPS, defence solicitor and/or court legal advisor). Where
it is an established fact of the case that, for example, the co-defendant John was the
one with the knife, or it was Gary’s idea to commit the burglary, this can be included
in the report. However, you should still say “the court has accepted that the knife was
produced by the co-defendant John.” or “The CPS facts of the case in the advance
disclosure identify Gary as being the instigator of the burglary”. Where you are not
able to say this, you must consider whether you should include the information or
not. It may be sufficient to say “Tom is adamant that the knife was produced by his
co-defendant. The CPS papers do not include any information on this but it is clear
that Tom did not have any weapons in his possession when he was arrested”.
Where this makes it difficult to write the report or convey the full situation discuss the
case with your manager. What is permissible will depend upon the circumstances
of the case and the purpose and type of the report. Ask yourself: “Can I justify this
comment? Would I be prepared to stand up in court and explain why it is in my
report?” If you can answer yes to these questions, it can probably stay in. If you
answer no, seek further advice.
When including information about other people the following guidance applies.
• Names may be used where the information is already known to the court and is an
established fact of the case and: -
– the names belong to codefendants who are also being sentenced for the same offences
– the name is of an adult co-defendant who is to be, or has been, sentenced for the
same offence in the adult court
– other circumstances where the name of the person is essential to understanding
the information or making sense of what happened.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
24
Where a young person describes the respective actions of other people during an
offence but this information is not already known to the court or established as a
fact of the case, you should not name the individuals. You should, however, say how
these people were known to the young person in question, what their relationship
was, the relative ages etc. Use terms such as “John’s friend”, “a family friend”, “one of
the group of young people who was with John”. It is necessary to do this in order to
analyse the young person’s culpability in the offence and his risk of further offending;
however, you must make it clear which information is fact, which is the young
person’s account, and which is your interpretation of events.
Devices such as “co-defendant A and co-defendant B” or “Friend 1 and friend 2” can
seem somewhat contrived and are not usually necessary - use only where it is not
possible to explain events without specifying who did what in this way. In most cases,
it will be possible to say that:
“ Of the 3 young people involved in the incident it is not clear exactly who took what
part. One of the three had a hammer in his possession and this hammer was used
to break the window and gain entry to the house.”
Then go on to say what your client actually did; the bits of the offence that are known
to be due to him alone, and then comment on the offence as a whole. If they are
jointly charged they take joint responsibility:- a knife was used in the offence / the
total damage was £500 / the injuries sustained by the victim included a chipped tooth
and a cut to his cheek.
Example 1
J ohn was with two friends, both, he says, a couple of years older than him, whom he
knew from the road where he lives. The Court will be aware that John’s part in the
offence was to bring a screwdriver, which he brought from home, while he says that
one of the friends showed him how to use it to open the door of the car. John says
his friends encouraged him and it is my assessment that he may have committed the
offence as he sought to impress, and be accepted by, these slightly older friends.
Neither of the friends was arrested, although the police report says that two other
males were seen with John, by a member of the public, at the time of the offence.
Example 2
In our interview for this report, Jade said she assaulted the victim because she (the
victim) had sworn at her. I am unable to verify this as, having sought legal advice
from the solicitor present in police interview, Jade made no comment at that time.
Jade says she and the victim were known to each other, as they had both been
pupils at the same school until they left in June last year.
Example 3
our young people were involved in the Affray, 3 of whom have been charged F
and appear as codefendants. [Fact: already known to the court] Darren says that all
4 young people had been drinking beer and smoking cannabis at one of the young
people’s homes, prior to the offence, and that it was suggested by one of them
that they go out to buy more beer. I am unable to verify this as the accounts in the
advance disclosure differ. The Affray took place when Darren and his codefendants
had just left the off-licence [fact from the advance disclosure]. During the Affray
bottles of beer were thrown, [known fact] although Darren says he has no
recollection of this.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
25
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.9.3 Offence Denial
Possible scenarios:
Not Guilty plea
total denial even after conviction (Consider appeal)
Guilty plea
but totally denies offence (e.g. pleaded guilty on solicitor’s advice)
Guilty plea
but denies main aspects of the offence
Guilty plea
but gives a different version of events
The Court has convicted after a trial or accepted the guilty plea. The standard of
proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” therefore the court has found that the offence
did happen.
The PSR author needs to know the basis of conviction – which version of events,
or which facts were accepted by the court?
If the young person’s version of events is different from the established facts of the
case, do not present the young person’s account of the offence as if their version
could be true: the court has decided that it is not.
Where a young person continues to deny an offence you can still offer some
offence analysis:
• Analyse the offence according to the facts accepted by the court as far as you can.
• You will be able to make comment on the likely effect of alcohol or drug use on
thinking and behaviour.
• You will be able to comment on the likely influence of codefendants or peer group.
• You will be able to comment on any relevant pattern established by recent and
relevant previous convictions, and to what extent the current offence fits that
pattern.
• You will be able to comment on the likely significance of any learning disability or
mental health issue.
• You will be able to comment on the aggravating or mitigating effect of any planning,
use of weapon, threats, provocation etc
Ask WHY? – Why does young person continue to deny the offence?
Possible reasons include:
• Failure to understand the legal advice they were given
– not realising that they are guilty of burglary if they were just the lookout
– not realising that hitting the person who hit your girlfriend, is not self-defence
• Immaturity
• Cognitive impairment
• Fear – of consequences
– of reprisals from victim, family or friends
– fear of losing face; having started a lie it is very hard to backtrack
• Genuine belief in own innocence - consider whether there are mental health issues,
e.g. delusions
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
26
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
In all cases consider whether an appeal would be appropriate and, if necessary,
advise the young person to seek legal advice
The reasons for denial will be relevant to offence analysis, risk assessment, ROSH
and risk management plan. External controls may be needed if the young person
does not accept that their behaviour is wrong/risky and is not willing to address the
causes of their offending.
In some cases the young person’s continued denial is a form of magical, or wishful,
thinking. The young person wishes he/she had not committed the offence and
denies his/her involvement in the hope or belief that their version might ‘become’ true.
This form of denial may show that the young person is very upset, embarrassed, or
even traumatised, by what they have done. The feelings of shame, fear and regret
can be very strong and painful for the young person. Their denial is an attempt to
cope with those feelings and a wish to be seen in a better light by others.
3.9.4 Basis of Plea
A “basis of plea” means that the defendant has entered a guilty plea on the basis of
certain facts about the circumstances or nature of the offence being agreed by the
court. If the prosecution accepts his or her basis of plea, this will form the new facts
of the case. You need to check that any basis of plea has been signed and accepted
by the court.
Where the offence is admitted but certain facts about it are disputed, there may be a
Newton Hearing – a trial within a trial – whereby the court will consider the evidence
about these particular facts or circumstances. For example, a young person may
admit causing GBH but deny that a weapon was used. The Newton hearing will
consider the evidence relating to the weapon. Where there has been a Newton
Hearing the PSR author must obtain the details of this and make sure they are clear
as to the basis of the conviction.
Where the court has accepted a “Basis of Plea” from the young person it is vital that
the PSR author has full details of this, or the offence cannot be correctly analysed.
If the necessary information is not available, an adjournment should be requested,
or, at the very least, the PSR should include a clear statement about the limitations
of the offence analysis.
The court must sentence a young person according to the facts and the seriousness
of the offence on which the conviction is based. For example:
• If the original statements say there was a knife but the young person denies this,
and a guilty plea is accepted on the basis that there was no knife, NO reference to a
knife can be made in the PSR.
• The original charge was robbery and the CPS file, statements, case summary etc
was made out for a robbery, but the court subsequently accepts pleas to theft and
assault, the PSR must not make any reference to demands for money made with
threats of violence.
• If the young person was charged with burglary in which £500 of jewellery was
stolen but the court accepted a plea on the basis that only a cheap watch was
stolen, there must be no mention in the report of any other jewellery being stolen or the effects on the victim of losing the jewellery.
In short, the PSR must only analyse the offence in terms of the facts accepted by
the court. If the PSR author does not know what these are, he/she cannot write the
PSR. Where case details have been requested but not provided, the court should
be informed of this and an adjournment requested. This should be done in writing in
advance of the hearing date.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
27
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The following case ruling may be of assistance in understanding the importance of
knowing the correct facts on which the conviction is based:
R v Nottingham Crown Court, ex parte DPP (1995 Crim. L. Rl 902)
restatement of Lord Lane C.J. (R v. Fisher ’81, 3 Crim L.R. (5)313)
A sentencer may not take into account, as an aggravating feature of an offence,
a fact which is part of the definition of a more serious offence: whether of
circumstances or “mens rea” – state of mind of the offender at the time.
If the charge is theft from person, they may not mention that a threat of violence
was made, as that would have amounted to Robbery. If the charge is theft,
no mention can be made that they entered the private area of the shop etc.,
as that would be burglary.
Also, if the charge is GBH without intent (s 20) no mention may be made of facts
which actually tend to show that there was planning, preparation to act with intent.
This is relevant for PSR writers as the detail gained from the extensive enquiries
often made of young person and family may shed useful light on the circumstances
of an offence but must not be included if they point to features of the offence which
are not part of the charge
3.9.5 Victims
Where there is an identified victim or victims the report should include information
on the effects of the offence on the victim. The young person’s reaction to, and
understanding of, the impact on the victim is an essential part of the offence analysis.
While the victim liaison officer may have contacted the victim to discuss suitability
for mediation and direct reparation, information on the impact of the offence on the
victim must be taken only from the Victim Personal Statement (which should be
provided with the advance disclosure).
It is imperative that the PSR author does not introduce new information about the
offence gleaned from the victim by the VLO. Any further information about the
impact of the offence can only be put before the court if it is in the form of a section 9
statement (which the police would obtain) and is made available to the defence.
New information about the impact of the offence cannot be included in the PSR
as it has not been available for cross examination.
3.10 Assessment of Young Person
The purpose of this section of the report is to assist the court in completing its
assessment of seriousness and to decide which of the available penalties would be
the most suitable for the young person.
The various content of this section can be included in any order. It is not necessary
to start with reference to previous convictions and indeed, it can sometimes be more
helpful to explain the young person’s family and personal circumstances first, to set a
context in which to understand their offending.
• Information should be selective, balanced and relevant
• Previous convictions will be considered as aggravating the seriousness of the
current offence(s) where they are both recent and relevant (CJA 2003 s 143(2))
• Evaluate relevant patterns, episodes or repetition of offending
• Social and personal influences on offending
• Circumstances which impact on seriousness of offence, e.g. family crisis
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
28
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• an assessment of the young person’s vulnerability and any vulnerability
management plan should be included in this section; pay particular attention to any ways in which the young person may be vulnerable if a custodial sentence is received
• Relationship with parents/carers - assessment of parenting
• Parental responsibility – parental bind over and/or parenting order
• Care plan under the Children Act 1989
• Response to previous orders: breaches, failures and successes
• Educational circumstances, attendance, behaviour, performance, future plans
• Financial circumstances of young person and parents. Parents can be made
responsible for fines and compensation. This is usual where young person is under 16, but is possible up to and including 17
• Character references and other letters of support can certainly be referred to in
the PSR but should be submitted to the court by the young person or their legal
representative; they should not be submitted with the PSR
3.10.1 Previous Convictions
Only reprimands, final warnings, conditional cautions and convictions which are
both recent and relevant will be considered as aggravating factors and thus make
the current matters more serious (CJA 2003 s 143(2)). Where previous reprimands,
final warnings, conditional cautions or convictions are neither recent nor relevant,
especially where the convictions are ‘spent’, they should not usually be referred to;
there is certainly no need to give a full account of every past offence, only address
those which shed light on the current matters. A simple way to note the existence of
all the previous offences but direct the court’s attention to those which are recent and
relevant is to say, “Of the eight previous offences XX has committed, only two would
seem to be relevant to the current matters.” – and then go on to analyse the link,
pattern etc.
Where the PSR includes information on previous convictions, or lack of them,
do not simply regurgitate the list of them; the PSR should evaluate any patterns
of offending and make comment on lengths of time between offences. NB look
at offence dates, not just conviction dates. Where the previous convictions are
particularly relevant to the current offences they may be referred to or dealt with
in the Offence Analysis section. For further guidance on understanding patterns of
offending see page 31
The PSR should consider the young person’s response to any previous community
penalties. This includes successful completion or breach, level of compliance,
engagement and change in behaviour, and whether there has been any offending
during orders, and for how long afterwards. Again, do not simply list all the orders
received, but present a summary analysis, linking orders by type, response, or
grouping them to show the significance of episodes of offending and intervention.
3.10.2 Persistent and PPO Offenders
Also see Kent YOS Deter Young Offender (DYO) Policy
The report should not use terms such as PPO (Prolific and other Priority
Offender) or Persistent Offender as these terms have no legal definition and are
unhelpful negative labels in the context of a court report. It is much more useful
for the PSR author to draw attention to patterns in the offending, frequency and
seriousness, themes, links, gaps etc rather than simply to apply a wholly negative
label to the young person. Analysing their behaviour is relevant to the court report;
simply labelling the young person is not.
A PPO is a ‘prolific and other priority offender’; the definition relates only to those
designated by the PPO panel and their status must not be shared with the bench.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
29
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The term ‘persistent offender’ is not defined in any legislation. The following extract
from the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Overarching Principles of Sentencing –
Youths is the guidance that will be used by the courts:
A dictionary definition of “persistent offender” is “persisting or having a tendency
to persist”; “persist” is defined as “to continue firmly or obstinately in a course of
action in spite of difficulty or opposition”.
In determining whether an offender is a persistent offender for these purposes,
a court should consider the simple test of whether the young person is one who
persists in offending:
i) in most circumstances, the normal expectation is that the offender will have had some contact with authority in which the offending conduct was
challenged before being classed as “persistent”; a finding of persistence in
offending may be derived from information about previous convictions but
may also arise from orders which require an admission or finding of guilt –
these include reprimands, final warnings, restorative justice disposals and
conditional cautions; since they do not require such an admission, penalty
notices for disorder are unlikely to be sufficiently reliable;
ii) a young offender is certainly likely to be found to be persistent (and, in relation
to a custodial sentence, the test of being a measure of last resort is most likely
to be satisfied) where the offender has been convicted of, or made subject to
a pre-court disposal that involves an admission or finding of guilt in relation to,
imprisonable offences on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months.
ven where a young person is found to be a persistent offender, a court is
E
not obliged to impose the custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with
intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering that becomes available as
a result of that finding. The other tests continue to apply and it is clear that
Parliament expects custodial sentences to be imposed only rarely on those
aged 14 or less.
The court cannot impose a DTO on a 12 - 14 year old, or a YRO with ISS on a young
person under 15, unless they are also a “persistent offender”. In the absence of a
legal definition it is expected that the courts will use the interpretation given by the
Sentencing Guideline’s Council.
3.10.3 Personal Circumstances
Coverage of the young person’s social circumstances and other personal details
should be sufficient, succinct and relevant. Information unrelated to offence, disposal
or risk of further offending should not usually be included.
When creating a PSR via Connectivity, it is essential that
a) the Asset is completed with the full information necessary for a comprehensive
assessment and not restricted to that which will appear in the PSR,
b) information which was relevant to the Asset is properly edited and removed from
the PSR if it is not relevant to the purpose of the PSR, and
c) the content is organised to create a logical flow of information through the report and the wording, grammar and style of writing are made appropriate for a court report.
The purpose of including personal information is to assist the court in understanding
the young person’s offending and to decide upon the most suitable penalty to prevent
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
30
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
further offending. Any information included in the report about the young person’s
family, educational circumstances, lifestyle, substance misuse, emotional or mental
health etc., should not be included just for information’s sake, but must be explained
in terms of the link to his or her offending and how best to prevent further offending
whilst having regard for his or her welfare. The information and supporting evidence
gathered for Asset will be essential in explaining the significance of these events or
issues to the young person’s thinking and behaviour, but not all information which is
relevant to Asset will be relevant to the PSR.
While the court must have regard to the young person’s welfare, it would
be unlawful to increase the restriction on liberty for welfare reasons alone
– even if the interventions would be of benefit to the young person; purely
welfare interventions should not form part of a statutory court order. It would,
however, be appropriate to address welfare issues where doing so would
reduce the risk of offending.
The PSR must avoid negative stereotyping or other unjustified discriminatory
comments. Be aware of the possible negative effect of language, even if none
is intended.
Reference to financial circumstances must be sufficient and relevant to the offence
and possible outcome. Bear in mind the age of the young person and whether they or
the parents will be responsible for the payments. Consider the effect of this on other
family members. Where financial compensation would be difficult to pay, consider the
young person’s willingness to perform direct or indirect reparation to the victim or the
community in lieu of monetary compensation.
Personal strengths, support networks or other positives should be addressed where
they may help in reducing offending.
Where other workers are involved, their contribution to the report must be reflected
accurately and relevantly - and with their permission, e.g. Education Welfare Officer,
Social Worker, etc
Overall, the material included must pass the relevance test – ie:
is it relevant to
• the offence or pattern of offending
• the possible disposal
• the risk of further offending?
If not, can you justify why it is in there?
3.10.4 Assessment of Parenting
The YJB National Standards 2009 set out a requirement for all PSRs to include an
assessment of the need for parenting support and whether this should be voluntary
or under a Parenting Order. The assessment should include as much of the following
information as is relevant to the particular case:
• the type, level and quality of support and supervision the young person receives
from his/her parents
• identification of any problems, what has been done to address these in the past,
what is being done now and what will or might be done in the future
• identification of positive aspects of the parenting, including changes and
improvements that have been made, especially in response to the offence
• specific examples of what the parents do to support, supervise or control the young
person’s behaviour and reduce the risk of offending
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
31
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• where the young person is a looked after child or is otherwise living away from his/
her parents explain the situation and the level and type of support they are now
getting from their carers
• whether the parents have been referred to the YOS parenting worker already, and
their response to this
• information from the YOS parenting worker where they have already been involved
• whether or not a parenting order should be made and why
3.10.5 Vulnerability
The young person’s vulnerability should be addressed in this section of the report.
When preparing a PSR using Connectivity ensure that information on the young
person’s vulnerability has been removed from the risk section of the report and
included in the Assessment of Young Person section. Information relevant to
vulnerability will include:
• mental and emotional health issues, including separation, loss, bereavement and rejection
• self harm
• suicide threats or attempts
• risk taking behaviour, including drug and alcohol abuse, sexual behaviour and other
offending behaviour which places the young person themselves at risk of harm
• actions or omissions of others which place the young person at risk of harm
• the impact of any custodial sentence
Factors affecting the young person’s vulnerability should be identified in Asset
and, where necessary, addressed in a Vulnerability Management Plan (VMP),
The relevant information should be relayed in the PSR.
Be aware that those young people who are assessed as posing a risk of harm to
others may very often pose a risk of harm to themselves also. Furthermore, young
people who use drugs and/or alcohol as a coping strategy or to self-medicate
underlying mental or emotional health issues, may become particularly vulnerable
if abstinence is enforced during a custodial sentence.
3.11 Assessment of Risk to the Community,
(including the Risk of Re-offending and Harm)
This section assesses both the risk of re-offending and the risk of harm; these
are separate considerations. Vulnerability of the young person is not relevant to
this section except where it relates directly to the risk of them offending or causing
harm to others. It should normally be dealt with in the section on Assessment of
Young Person.
This section should make a concise statement based on the author’s professional
judgement, and supported with evidence, of
1 the risk (likelihood) of re-offending, and 2 the risk (likelihood and severity) of harm
to the public
• nature and seriousness of further offences and likelihood of their occurring
• possible patterns of offending and how an understanding of the pattern can aid
prediction of future offending and lead to targetted interventions to prevent it
• young person’s capacity or motivation to change
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
32
• a specific plan for how the risk may be managed and/or reduced, drawn from Asset,
ROSH and RMP or other intervention plan. The plan should explain the availability
of programmes, activities or support which would reduce the risk or impact of
offending, when and how these would be available, and whether the young person
is likely to engage. This plan should be consolidated in the proposal
Where the young person has committed a ‘specified offence’ under Schedule 15
of the CJA 2003 this section must also include an assessment of dangerousness if
this has been requested by the youth or Crown Court. It may include an assessment
of dangerousness in any case where the YOS has information which it believes is
relevant to the assessment of dangerousness and which should be brought to the
attention of the court. Where an assessment of dangerousness is to be included,
the assessment of dangerousness should usually be dealt with before going on
to address other aspects of risk. The agreed wording and further information on
assessing dangerousness is detailed below at 3.11.1 and 3.11.2.
The PSR should indicate the key risk and protective factors identified through Asset,
ROSH (and any other specialist assessments undertaken) to explain the nature,
impact and likelihood of any behaviour that would lead to re-offending or cause
serious harm to other people. It is important to avoid vague phrases about risk of
offending or harm to the community – instead, the PSR needs to be specific in
identifying the nature and level of risk or harm to others and the circumstances in
which this is more or less likely to occur.
Ensure that there is an analysis of any protective factors to show whether, and
to what extent, they are actually preventing offending in this particular case. For
example, while a stable home life and full time education might generally be
protective factors, if the young person has offended despite a stable home life and
full time education, these factors have not been protective in this case and cannot
be cited as reducing the risk of offending. On the contrary, the risk of offending may
actually be higher if the usual protective factors have been ineffective.
Where the report suggests the risk of offending may be reduced if, for example, the
young person engages with YOS interventions, or reduces his alcohol use, or finds
employment, the report should also state how likely this is to happen. Use evidence
from past compliance / noncompliance etc to support your claims.
Patterns of Offending
Caution should be exercised in describing any young person’s offending as
‘a pattern’. Due to their age and the processes of change which occur during
adolescence, most young people’s behaviour cannot be said to form an established
pattern. A pattern of offending only exists where there is a clear similarity between
offences or offence related circumstances, which are repeated over a substantial
period of time. A pattern cannot be comprised of less than three events or where the
gaps between offences are too long to show any connection. Where offences are
committed very close together this may comprise an episode of offending but not
necessarily a pattern. A pattern is formed when previous offending sheds new light
on the current matters and is relevant to understanding the offending and predicting
the circumstances in which further offences are likely. Alternative ways to describe
the offending include: an episode, a recurrence, or a repetition.
Harm and Serious Harm
Make sure that you have distinguished between the risk of harm to others, such as
may be caused by common assault and ABH type offences, and the risk of serious
harm. Remember that serious harm is defined in the CJA 2003 as, “death or serious
personal injury , whether physical or psychological”. The YJB definition in relation to
the ROSH assessment is, “death or injury (either physical or psychological) that is
life threatening and/or traumatic and from which recover is expected to be difficult,
incomplete or impossible.”
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
33
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Address risk of re-offending and risk of harm in separate paragraphs:
With regard to XX’s risk of re-offending,....... give evidence and examples to
demonstrate the risk and protective factors.......... It is therefore my assessment that
XX poses a low risk / a medium risk / a high risk with regards to re-offending.
With regard to the future risk XX poses to the public,....... give evidence and
examples to demonstrate the risk and protective factors........... it is my assessment
that XX poses a low risk / a medium risk / a high risk with regards to being involved in
future harmful/seriously harmful behaviour.
Making a specific, evidence-based risk assessment
All risk assessments should be based on the risk and protective factors identified in
Asset, and a ROSH assessment where applicable. To ensure the risk assessment is
specific and well-evidenced, the following diagram provides a very useful framework:
Protective
factors
Risk ofWhat
To Whom
When
Where
How soon
Circumstances
and situational
triggers
Previous offending
or harm-related
behaviour
Current
risk
indicators
(behaviour
and
attitudes)
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
34
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Consider the following:
1. Who is likely to get hurt?
2. How seriously, and in what way?
3. Is it likely to happen right now, next week, or when?
4. How often?
5. In what circumstances will it be more, rather than less likely to occur?
6. What is the worst the individual has ever done, and in what circumstances?
7. Is the behaviour that led to the offending continuing?
8. What are the patterns of behaviour?
9. What has previously stopped him/her?
10. Does he/she want to be stopped? In what ways has this been demonstrated?
11. What has been the impact of any work undertaken previously?
12. What is the young person saying about likely actions?
13. What is he/she telling you, not only by words, but also by demeanour/actions?
14. What information is available from others, e.g. other professionals, other members of the family?
Assessments of risk should be a dynamic assessment, informed by offending history
as well as current circumstances and attitudes.
There are dangers in any process which contains an element of prediction of
behaviour. However, addressing risk honestly and straightforwardly in PSRs gives the
conclusion and proposal greater authority. It should allow arguments for one disposal
rather than another to be made confidently and for the rationale to be clear to the
sentencer as well as the report writer and the offender.
Can you justify your assessment of risk?
See also Kent YOS policy on Risk Management
3.11.1 CJA 2003 Dangerousness and Sentences for Public Protection
In accordance with section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, when a young
person is convicted of one of the ‘specified offences’ listed in schedule 15 of
the Criminal Justice Act 2003 it falls to the court to make an assessment of
‘dangerousness’. The criteria for a ‘dangerous offender’ are that there is a
significant risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences.
The young person must meet all three parts of this definition before the court can
determine that he or she is a ‘dangerous offender’.
Young people assessed by the court as meeting the definition of a ‘dangerous
offender’, and where the appropriate minimum term is likely to be met (see below),
must be sent to the Crown Court where sentences for public protection may be used.
Please note that the original powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have been
amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 with the effect that the
Crown Court now has discretion as to whether to use the public protection sentences
or not. In addition, the powers should only be used where a minimum custodial period
of at least two years is warranted. (a 4 year determinate sentence or a tariff of 2 years
so that the actual time in custody is at least 2 years) See Appendix 2 for full details. Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
35
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Seriousness Versus Dangerousness
See Appendix 2 for further details.
Factors relevant to the seriousness of the offence should be addressed in the
Offence Analysis section of the PSR. Factors relevant to dangerousness should be
addressed in the Risk section of the PSR
In most cases, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence in order to
pass a sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of what has actually been
done. Within that sentence, interventions can be provided to reduce the risk of
future offending, but the sentence, the restriction on liberty, cannot ‘outweigh’ the
seriousness of the offence that was actually committed. For a young person who
has committed a low seriousness offence, the court cannot give a disproportionate
sentence in order to address the high risk of reoffending that may have been
identified in Asset and/or ROSH. Similarly, in cases where the offence is very serious
but Asset and ROSH suggest a low risk of reoffending, the court must still pass a
sentence with a substantial restriction on liberty to match the seriousness of the
offence actually committed.
The assessment of seriousness is made by taking account of the various aggravating
and mitigating factors relating to the offence and the offender. These are explained in
the Offence Analysis section above and in Appendix 2 below.
The assessment of dangerousness is about what the offender might do in the future.
When sentencing an offender who meets the dangerousness criteria the court is
allowed to pass a disproportionate sentence to protect the public from what the
offender might do in the future. The seriousness of the offence already committed
will form part of the assessment of dangerousness, but the court is allowed to take
account of additional factors about the offender’s non-conviction behaviour, attitudes
and intentions, which would not be permitted under normal sentencing in relation to
seriousness alone.
Be aware that some factors which might reduce seriousness, such as impulsive or
opportunist offending, may actually increase the risk of dangerousness because
that which is impulsive, spontaneous or not planned, cannot usually be predicted
and therefore cannot be managed or prevented. Conversely, it is usual for planned
offences to be regarded as more serious by the court because in a planned offence
the offender usually knows it is wrong, has time to think and decides to proceed with
the offence anyway. However, in an assessment of dangerousness, while planning
may still show that the offender is dangerous due to the deliberate nature of the
offence, it may be more predictable and therefore easier to manage and prevent in
future. Consequently an extended or indeterminate sentence for public protection
may not be needed as ordinary sentencing powers would be sufficient to manage
the risks posed.
Additional factors which may suggest dangerousness include:
• random attacks (violent or sexual) on strangers
• unpredictable rage/loss of temper in response to a wide range of triggers
• offending which is not limited to one set of circumstances - it takes place when the
offender is drunk or sober, on drugs or not, alone or with others, etc.
• offending which includes use of any weapon that is to hand, picked up and used in
the heat of the moment
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
36
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Additional factors which may reduce dangerousness, or at least make it
manageable, include:
• offending against one particular type/category of victim - family members, other
teenage boys, the police, racist offending - this makes it easier to predict and easier
to design interventions/surveillance to protect those particular victims
• offending in one set of circumstances - always with friends or the same codefendant, only when drunk, when unemployed - this makes it easier to control the
circumstances in which the offending is most likely to arise - curfew requirement,
prohibited activity, exclusion requirement etc.
• planned offending - once the method of planning is identified (through offence cycle
and other work) the warning signs of planning or intention can be identified and
action can be taken to prevent the offence.
Note that these factors may make the offence itself more serious, but they make the
behaviour more predictable and therefore, potentially, easier to identify and manage dangerousness occurs where the risks cannot be managed and the future behaviour
cannot be prevented by predicting it. Be aware that an offender who deliberately
plans his or her offending and targets his/her victims, especially where this is done
in spite of all attempts at intervention/risk management may rate high in terms of
offence seriousness and dangerousness.
Each case needs a detailed analysis in relation to seriousness in the Offence
Analysis section, and in relation to dangerousness in the Risk section. Remember:
seriousness is about what actually already happened, dangerousness is about what
might take place in the future.
3.11.2 Agreed Wording for assessments of Dangerousness
Two forms of wording have been agreed for assessments of dangerousness in
Kent YOS court reports.
The full form of wording below may be used in the following cases:
• All ‘serious specified offences’
• All Crown Court reports
• All PSRs where the court has specifically requested an assessment of
dangerousness
• Any other report where the circumstances of the offence or other aspects of the
young person’s behaviour warrant a more detailed assessment. This includes cases
where the court would not be aware of the full extent of the risk unless the YOS
provides the information.
The short form of wording may be used in the following cases:
• SSRs for ordinary ‘specified offences’ (SSRs should not normally be written for
serious specified offences, unless in exceptional circumstances and with the
authorisation of a manager or practice supervisor).
• PSRs for ordinary ‘specified offences’ in the youth court where the court has not
requested an assessment of dangerousness and there is nothing in the ROSH to
suggest concerns about dangerous behaviour.
• other cases where the court has already made, or been provided with, a
comprehensive assessment of dangerousness and is satisfied that the offender is
not dangerous and the YOS has nothing further to add
• The decision to use the short form of wording must always be agreed by the
gatekeeping manager.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
37
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The short form of wording is as follows:
......offence...... is a specified offence listed in Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003. However, assessment using Asset and ROSH does not indicate that
.....name..... poses a significant risk of causing serious harm to others from the
commission of further specified offences.
In exceptional cases where a stand down report has been authorised by a manager
or practice supervisor there may not be an Asset or ROSH assessment. In such
cases the following wording may be used: .....offence..... is a specified offence listed
in Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, no information is currently
known about this young person to suggest that .....name....... poses a significant risk
of causing serious harm to others from the commission of further specified offences.
Follow this statement with a full and detailed assessment of risk of re-offending and
risk of harm, both supported with evidence.
The long form of wording is as follows:
As….name…… has pleaded guilty to / been convicted of [delete as applicable] an
offence that is specified in Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 [if applicable
add: and considered to be a serious offence as defined by section 224 of the Act,] the
Court may require / requires [delete as applicable] information to inform its assessment
of dangerousness. I have undertaken an assessment in relation to the risk of serious
harm and dangerousness using the tools “Asset” and “Asset Risk of Serious Harm
(ROSH)” and discussed this with my YOS colleagues. In making an assessment of
dangerousness the court may wish to consider the following information:
The specified offence(s) under consideration is / are …………. The factors most
relevant to the seriousness of the offence are addressed in the Offence Analysis
section of this report. [Check that they have indeed been explained fully there. If
necessary you may briefly reiterate key points relating to seriousness here but
remember this section is about future risks and seriousness is about what already
happened] The additional factors which may be relevant to an assessment of
dangerousness would seem to be:
PSR to give relevant details including:
• Aggravating factors which may suggest dangerousness
• Circumstances which may suggest dangerousness
• Triggers which may suggest dangerousness
• Mitigating factors which may reduce fears of dangerousness
• Protective factors which may suggest the young person is not dangerous
This should not repeat everything from the offence analysis section but should
highlight those factors which are specific to the assessment of dangerousness
Where applicable either
…..name…..has …….number……previous convictions for offences which may
be relevant to the assessment of dangerousness. On ….date…… name…..was
made subject to a …….sentence………for an offence of ……..offence……….The
circumstances of that offence are that…………details of the offence.......
OR
.....name..... has no previous convictions but ........state nature of the relevant
behaviour, highlighting the features which may be relevant to dangerousness..........
Note: Be careful when addressing previous convictions to distinguish between those
which are relevant to the seriousness of the offending (recent and relevant) and those
which are relevant to dangerousness (future risk of serious harm):
• only those convictions which are both recent and relevant will aggravate the
seriousness - Offence Analysis section
• Those which may be relevant to the assessment of dangerousness include all
previous convictions, anywhere in the world, together with any other behaviour
which forms part of a relevant pattern.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
38
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Consider any pattern to the offending and in what way past behaviour informs your
current assessment of dangerousness.
Where applicable –
either:
On this occasion the pattern of offending suggests that the previous offence(s)
/ specified offence(s). / behaviour is / are relevant to the current assessment of
dangerousness because ........state why........
Or:
The previous offence(s) / specified offence(s) / behaviour do not / does not
suggest a pattern which is relevant to the assessment of dangerousness because
.....state why......
….name……..has…….response to previous interventions………
Give information about previous compliance or interventions which may be relevant
to managing the risk the young person poses
It is therefore the assessment of Kent Youth Offending Service that …name....does
/ does not currently pose a significant risk of serious harm from further specified
offences.
B Advance Disclosure papers must be kept in all cases where an offence under
N
Schedule 15 of the CJA 2003 has been dealt with. These papers will be needed in
the event that a further specified offence is committed as they are directly relevant to
any future assessment of dangerousness.
3.12 Conclusion
The conclusion should flow logically and directly from the rest of the report.
It is useful to begin with a summary of the offence – especially as magistrates
may read a report early on in the day then just read the conclusion to refresh their
memories later.
The conclusion should reflect the preceding assessments of the nature and context
of the offence, the young person’s personal circumstances and any potential risk
to the public. New information should not be introduced at this stage but inferences
drawn from the preceding information can be presented here.
Ensure that the Conclusion:
• summarises the main points of offence and personal circumstances
• reflects preceding assessments
• does not add new information
• contains one proposal for sentencing
• less suitable options may need to be discounted
• comment on the likely effect of custody if relevant
• where custody is inevitable acknowledge this
• where no proposal is possible explain why.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
39
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Remember that in sentencing a young person the court must have regard to:
• Crime and Disorder Act 1998 s37 - primary aim to prevent offending
• section 44 CYP Act 1933 – The Welfare Principle
The following legislation also applies:
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: the best interests of the child
shall be the primary consideration
• Children Act 1989: the welfare of the child shall be paramount
3.12.1 Proposal (The proposal in the PSR does not have a separate heading)
The proposal for sentencing is contained within the conclusion. In line with the
requirements of legislation, (Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Criminal Justice Act
2003 and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008), the proposal should be
for the sentence the YOS believes is both commensurate with its assessment of
seriousness and the option most likely to prevent re-offending. The sentence must
also have regard to the welfare of the young person. The sentence proposed must
be suitable for the young person taking account of his or her age, maturity, personal
circumstances and any diversity issues.
If the court has specifically asked for the report to consider a number of options,
these will need to be explored and discounted, with reasons, before one proposal is
made. In other cases, it may be appropriate to explain which other options have been
considered and why they would not be appropriate.
The sentencing options fall into three broad categories: custody (offences must be
‘so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified”), a
community sentence (offences must be “serious enough to warrant a community
sentence”) or other (first tier) options below the community sentence threshold.
For all offences committed after 30th November 2009 the only community sentence
available to youths is the YRO with its menu of different requirements. As there are
so many requirements available, it is cumbersome to go through each one for the
purposes of discounting it. Where it is necessary to show consideration of a number
of requirements they can be effectively considered and discounted by type: those
providing intervention and those which are a ‘direct punishment’. Some requirements
can be discounted due to the age of the young person.
Note that the YRO spans the whole of the community sentence band, right up to
the threshold with custody. Where you are proposing a YRO it is not appropriate to
say that you have discounted any requirement as not being commensurate with the
seriousness of the offence. You can discount a requirement only on the basis that it
would not be suitable due to the length and type of intervention it offers.
Custodial Sentences and Alternatives to Custody
Where the young person appears to meet the criteria for a custodial sentence the
proposal should consider the YRO with ISS and the YRO with intensive Fostering as
alternatives to custody.
A custodial sentence must be a last resort when no other sentence can be justified.
If the young person meets the criteria for a custodial sentence the court has a legal
duty to consider the YRO with ISS and the YRO with Fostering as alternatives to
custody. If the court does not make one of these orders it must state the reasons why
it deemed them to be inappropriate.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
40
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
YRO with ISS
All proposals for YRO with ISS must be made through a consultation process
between the PSR author and the ISS team. The consultation between the PSR
author and ISS should address the following:
• whether the criteria for a YRO with ISS have been met
• whether a YRO with ISS is necessary given the assessment of seriousness fo the
offences - or whether an ‘ordinary’ YRO would be sufficient
• whether the young person is suitable for the ISS requirements, taking account of
age, maturity, and any diversity issues or special needs
• which level of ISS would be most appropriate given the combination of the
seriousness of the offence, the Asset score and ROSH level
• any additional requirements that should be included in the YRO
For guidance as to the wording for a proposal of YRO with ISS, see Appendix 8
Custody
In cases where a custodial sentence is likely the PSR should address the various
custodial options. These are:
• DTO, s100 PCC(S)A 2000
• s91 PCC(S)A 2000 determinate sentence for ‘grave crimes’,
• s90 PCC(S)A 2000 detention at her majesty’s pleasure (equivalent to a life
sentence),
• S228 CJA 2003 Extended Sentence for Public Protection and
• s226 CJA 2003 Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection
Note that not all of these options will be available in every case. For further
information see the Sentencing Options Table at Appendix XXXXX
It will be appropriate to comment on the likely length of the custodial sentence taking
account any time served on remand in custody/secure unit and any time spent on bail
subject to an electronically monitored curfew of 9 hours or more a day.
For a DTO the court must take account of time spent on remand or subject to bail
with an electronically monitored curfew, when calculating the length of the DTO.
While it is not possible to deduct an equivalent number of days as the DTO is only
available in set lengths, the court must choose the length of DTO to reflect the
equivalent deduction. Note that a reduction in sentence for a guilty plea will be an
additional factor to consider when deciding the sentence length. If these deductions
take the sentence below the DTO minimum of 4 months, the court should make a
community sentence instead.
For all other custodial sentences the time spent on remand in custody or on bail with
an electronically monitored curfew will be calculated as a number of days to be taken
off the sentence. For full details from the legislation see Appendix 8
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
41
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Where relevant, comment on the needs of the young person and whether these
might be best met on one type of custodial sentence rather than another. In particular
consider those young people who are almost 18 and whether they will be transferred
to the Probation service during their sentence or will remain with the YOS throughout.
Remember that young people have a great capacity to grow and change very rapidly.
The risks a young person poses at the point of sentence may cease to apply within
a short period of time and therefore the extended sentence and the indeterminate
sentence for public protection may not be necessary even for those young people
who do meet the dangerousness criteria. It is quite possible that the terms available
under a DTO will be sufficient to protect the public.
Comment on arrangements for accommodation, employment, education and training
and whether the release date will affect provision of / eligibility for these things.
Comment on the young person’s physical and mental health needs and whether
these can be adequately addressed during the custodial sentence.
Note any concerns about the young person’s vulnerability, paying particular attention
to any evidence that they may be subject to harm from others or self harm or suicide
attempts in a custodial setting.
Setting out the Details of the Proposal
Any proposal should include a plan for how it will be implemented, setting out
times and dates, frequency of contact, number of hours or sessions and who
will be responsible. Indicate the sequence in which the elements of your plan will be
implemented. It is appropriate to inform the court of the necessary length of the order
to fulfill the plan outline. However, the author should be careful to leave the court to
set the overall length of the order to acknowledge the seriousness of the offence.
Make clear and accurate reference to the requirements which can be included in
a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) under Schedule 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008. Being specific about the requirements you wish to be included
gives the court confidence in the intervention which will be delivered, it assists the
court in making the order as intended in the proposal, it makes the expectations of
the order clear to the young person and it makes the order enforceable in the event
of a breach.
See the document “YRO Comparison Chart” for full details of the YRO requirements,
and the chart “Youth Sentencing Options effective from 2009”, both of which are
available on Vizual
The proposal should also address:
• the degree of restriction on liberty: mention where relevant
• the most suitable restorative justice approach
• parental involvement and support for the order should be discussed
• the young person’s consent or willingness to comply should be included as well as
reference to proceedings for failure to comply
• the proposal should be a convincing argument for a particular sentence based on
the assessments made in the report; it should not be a surprise!
• effectiveness at preventing future offending
• propose the most suitable penalty for an offence, reflecting your assessment of the
seriousness of the offences and the offender’s maturity – don’t just second guess
the court
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
42
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• ensure that the proposal is legal, i.e. does not exceed the number of hours or length
available for age group and type of offence
• whether a parenting order and/or bind over should be made
As stated above, within the community sentence band there is no ‘tariff’. Any YRO
requirement is capable of spanning the whole band, from the community sentence
threshold up to the custody threshold. The factors to consider when choosing YRO
requirements are:
• Seriousness of the offence
• Risk of re-offending
• Consider restorative justice, consider the wishes of the victim
• Need for surveillance and/or controls
• Need for help and support
• Restriction of liberty
• Length of time needed to complete intervention
• Necessary intensity of intervention
• Suitability of any requirement for the particular young person
• Age and maturity of the young person
• As far as is possible, while maintaining proportionality, the proposal should be made
in accordance with the Scaled Approach.
• For Referral Orders and YROs with a supervision requirement, set out the level of
contact in accordance with the Scaled Approach.
3.12.2 The Scaled Approach
The Scaled Approach must be considered in making the proposal. The table – see
Appendix 3 – sets out a guide to the likely proposal requirements for the standard,
enhanced and intensive levels of contact. Where the levels of risk assessed in Asset
and ROSH do not match the level of seriousness of the offence(s), for example, a
low seriousness offence but high Asset scores, or a High seriousness offence but
low Asset score and ROSH level, the proposal must remain proportionate to the
seriousness of he offence and the requirements must be adapted to maintain a
proportionate restriction on liberty. For further information see the YJB guidance to
the Scaled Approach
The Scaled Approach levels of contact only apply to Referral Orders, YROs with a
supervision requirement and the community part of a DTO (Notice of Supervision).
3.12.3 Supervision Plans
The proposal should include an intervention plan, wherever relevant, setting out
the proposed number and type of sessions, dates and times where possible and
the name of the supervising or responsible officer. This should link to the Asset and
ROSH assessments and be in accordance with the YJB Scaled Approach – in so far
as this is possible while maintaining proportionality.
Reference should be made to frequency of contact in line with the Scaled Approach,
but where there is a valid reason for departing from the expected standard this
should be given. For some young people it is unrealistic to expect compliance with
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
43
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
the Scaled Approach level of contact. This might be due to a learning disability or
mental health issue, or homelessness, substance abuse or chaotic lifestyle. Where
this is known at the PSR stage attention should be drawn to the difficulties along with
a plan for managing them. In this way the court can still be confident that appropriate
supervision will be given to the young person even if not in accordance with agreed
standards. This should be agreed with your manager.
The young person’s understanding of the proposal and his/her willingness to comply
should be noted along with the consequences of failure to comply.
3.12.4 Parenting
See Appendix 4
The PSR must address both Parental Bind Overs and Parenting Orders. Both these
orders are mandatory for the parents of all youths aged 10 – 15 where the court
must make a Bind Over and a Parenting Order unless there is a good reason not to,
and discretionary for parents of youths aged 16 – 17 where the court has a power to
make either or both orders.
Information should be included in the report as to whether either of these Orders
would be desirable in preventing further offending. Parents should be given the option
to participate in parenting courses voluntarily but where this is unlikely to happen an
Order can be made.
In any Asset assessment where there is a score of 2 or more in the section on
‘family and personal relationships’ a referral must be made to the Parenting
Coordinator. Serious consideration should be given to a Parenting Order in these
circumstances.
Note that the Parenting Order can be made in the absence of the parent,
provided the parent has been given the relevant information about the order and
its implications, prior to its being made. For further information see Appendix 4
For the purpose of Parenting Orders a “parent” is anyone who acts in the capacity
as a parent, including step-parents, a parent’s partner, other family members or
family friends with whom the young person resides. Formal parental responsibility
is not a requirement.
3.12.5 Pre-court panels for ‘cusp of custody’ cases
Where the sentencing choice is between a referral order and custody, and the
court has indicated that a custodial sentence is a real possibility, a referral order
panel should be held before the day of sentence in order to provide the court with a
provisional referral order contract. This enables the court to see exactly what would
be included in the contract if the referral order was made, and to decide whether this
would be a sufficient restriction on liberty given the seriousness of the offence and
whether it would provide adequate protection of the public.
For all ‘cusp of custody’ cases the PSR should be adjourned for 3 weeks to allow
sufficient time for the pre-court panel to be convened and for the completed PSR to
include details of the provisional contract.
The panel should be held no later than 3 days prior to the court date.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
44
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
3.13 Good Practice Issues
• identify any uncertainty regarding accuracy of information
• is report concise? Can it be edited to reduce length?
• check for use of jargon or abbreviations
• check for understandable language. Report must be grammatically correct, spellchecked and properly laid out. While the YJB National Standards 2009 state that
the report must be understandable to the young person and his/her parents/carers,
it would be better to take the proper care and time to explain the report to them than
to over-simplify the language used.
• is the report free from discriminatory language and stereotypes: Section 95 CJA
1991 duty of all those involved in the administration of justice not to discriminate on
race, sex or any other improper ground.
• Do not include any information to inform the court that the young person is a prolific
and other priority offender (PPO)
• Remember you are trained in writing PSRs and are presenting your professional
assessment of the young person; there is no need to use any form of address to
indicate a differential power base in the court. It is not necessary to use the terms
‘your worships’ or ‘I respectfully…..’
3.14 Gatekeeping
All completed PSRs must be quality assured by a Practice Supervisor or Team
Manager.
The PSR author should complete the Asset and the PSR two clear working days
before the court date and alert the admin staff so that the QA process can be
completed.
3.15Addressing breach of YRO and other orders in a PSR
with or without other new offences
3.15.1 PSR Front sheet – under the “Offences” heading:
• Breach of Youth Rehabilitation Order
– Date Order made
– Length of Order
– YRO requirements* (including lengths, number of hours, days, curfew times etc)
– Date of conviction for the breach
• Original offences – set out the original offences with dates
– Make sure that only those offences for which the YRO was made are included
here. This is especially important for breach of YRO with ISS or Intensive
Fostering because only imprisonable offences can be included in these alternative
to custody YROs (unless the YRO with ISS was made in breach proceedings)
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
45
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• For breach of conditional discharge list the date the conditional discharge was
made, its length, the original offence(s) with date(s)
• List the new offences, with dates, in the usual way for a PSR
* make sure the word “requirement” is used, not “condition”
3.15.2 Sources of Information
Include reference to the YOS Breach Prosecution Statement and the Breach Report
(where the non-compliance itself will have been analysed already)
You may also include reference to the original PSR or SSR
3.15.3 Offence Analysis
The breach itself is not a ‘proper’ offence. The court has the option to deal with
the breach on its merits – do nothing, fine or amend the YRO – but once the court
decides to revoke and resentence it cannot give a penalty for the breach as well as
resentencing the original offences.
In relation to the original offences, the PSR needs to focus on the offences
themselves rather than on the nature and circumstances of the non-compliance. The
breach has already been admitted or proven and information on the nature, severity,
circumstances etc of the non-compliance will have been analysed in the Breach
Report. The court has asked for a PSR because it is not going to allow the order to
continue, is not simply going to amend the existing YRO, but is going to revoke the
YRO and resentence the original offences. Therefore the court is not sentencing the
breach itself, but is resentencing the original offences.
All the offences – the original offences and any new ones – are eligible for
resentence. All offences should be analysed and the normal PSR practice of
addressing the most serious offence first, and in most detail, applies.
The PSR will need to make it clear which offences are eligible for resentence as part
of the breach process, and which are new offences. This section of the report will need to include some guidance/suggestion for the court
as to how it might view the old and any new offences in terms of seriousness.
In relation to a breach of YRO, this section of the report will also need to address the
concept of “wilful and persistent failure to comply”. If the court finds that the young
person has wilfully and persistently failed to comply then a custodial sentence may
become an option when resentencing. Information on this should have been included
in the Breach Report but will need to be revisited here. In addition to information
on the failure to comply, the report must also include what has been done; some
requirements may have been complied with, some activities completed. Where
there are multiple YRO requirements make it clear which requirement(s) have been
breached and which have not.
All PSR authors will need to have read the Sentencing Guidelines Councils guidance
on “Overarching Principles of Sentencing – Youths” as this includes information on
“wilful and persistent” non-compliance.
3.15.4 Assessment of Young Person
There may be little change to this section, but analyses from the Response to the
Order will inform the assessment of maturity, culpability, suitability etc.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
46
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The young person’s living circumstances, family relationships, lifestyle, thinking and
attitudes – etc – will all be relevant to deciding if the non-compliance was wilful and
persistent.
When sentencing, the court must make the order or YRO requirements which are the
most suitable for the young person. The information in this section should examine
why the previous order was not successful, or was limited in its success, and what
would be the most suitable way of sentencing now.
3.15.5 Risk Section
Include any relevant information about the likelihood of future compliance and
whether this means the risks posed could be managed though a community order, or
not. If the last order failed to prevent further offending, what has been learnt from that
and what will be done differently this time?
3.15.6 Conclusion
Remember that the young person is to be sentenced for all the offences – those for
which the original sentence was made and any new ones. Be sure to distinguish
between imprisonable offences and non-imprisonable offences when addressing
YRO with ISS or YRO with Intensive Fostering
Even if the non-compliance is “wilful and persistent” the court does not have to
impose a custodial sentence.
When revoking and resentencing a YRO, the court must take into account the
portion of the order that was completed (like time served). Remind the court which
requirements of the order have been complied with and/or completed.
If the original YRO offences were imprisonable for adults, but carry less than the
DTO minimum – ie any offence with an adult max sentence of less than 4 months
such as criminal damage less than £5000, possession of cannabis, resisting
arrest – then the court may not be able to resentence these to custody, even if the
noncompliance is wilful and persistent. This has been raised recently by court legal
advisors and is still under debate. Discuss these cases with the court legal advisor.
If the court makes a custodial sentence instead of a YRO with ISS or Intensive
Fostering, then it must state its reasons for not using the alternative to custody
options – record the reasons given as these could form the basis of any appeal.
3.15.7 Straightforward breaches – no new offending
For straightforward breaches of orders, where there is non-compliance but no
further offences, the Kent YOS Report Writing Policy document guidance should be
followed:
• Breach Prosecution Statement
• Breach Report
Where a revocation and resentencing is requested this may be addressed in the
Breach Report, where there is no risk of a custodial sentence.
Where a revocation and resentencing is likely or is requested and there is a risk of a
custodial sentence, a full PSR should be requested.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
47
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
In these circumstances the PSR addresses:
• The breach – the nature and circumstances of the breach, including the aggravating
and mitigating factors of the breach such as total non-compliance, wilful and
persistent, or a technical breach within a period of general compliance and good
progress
• The original offences for which the order was imposed – these should be fully
analysed just as they would have been in the original PSR or SSR. Add to this
analysis anything that has changed such as no further offending for XX months
since the offences were committed, reparation completed – or not, level of
responsibility accepted – or not, victim awareness and empathy increased – or
not, any other effects of interventions, changes to lifestyle, bereavement, thinking,
attitudes etc (for better or worse).
• Proposal – to resentence the original offences – this must take account of the
time already served on the order and any progress made. The new sentence
does not have to be more onerous than the original sentence, especially where a
significant portion of the original sentence was successfully completed prior to the
breach, or there was significant progress made in addressing underlying causes of
offending during any period of compliance. The length of time offence-free since the
original matters will also affect the new assessment of seriousness. Also consider
whether compensation has been paid and whether reparative activities have been
undertaken. The new proposal should only be harsher than the original order where
there was a wilful and persistent failure to comply, where there was no progress
made in addressing any of the underlying causes of the offending, and/or where
there has been a big part of the order “wasted” due to poor compliance.
3.15.8 PSRs for breaches where there are also new offences
Where a young person has breached their Order and also committed new offences
there are various ways this might be resolved:
• Deal with the breach on its merits, (e.g. fine or no action) and allow the Order to
continue. At the same time, pass a new sentence for the new offences. (This might
be a similar concurrent order or it might be a different order.)
– Documents needed would be Breach Report in relation to the breach and a
separate SSR or PSR for the new offences. It would be appropriate for each
report to refer to the other report
• Revoke and resentence in response to the breach and include the new offences
in the single new order. This approach can be a sensible and creative response
where interventions in the community are likely to be effective in the long run but
the underlying issues will take more time to address. The new order can be an
opportunity to adjust the requirements and interventions of the original order to
make it more suitable and to make compliance more likely. The new order need
not necessarily be more onerous or restrictive – take account of any period of
compliance and progress when considering the overall seriousness of the case.
– Documents needed would be a PSR which addresses the breach itself, the
response to the order with analysis of the non-compliance, the original offences
and the new offences.
• Revoke and resentence – custody likely or inevitable. Where the non-compliance
and new offences taken together mean that custody is likely or inevitable, the PSR
should analyse the breach, the response to the order, the new offences and the
original offences, in full. The court will need to assess the seriousness of all these
matters/offences and decide whether:
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
48
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
– for Referral Orders and Reparation Orders, the totality of the offending (including
the breach itself) is “so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community
sentence can be justified”,
– or for YRO, YRO with ISS and YRO with IF, whether the failure to comply was
“wilful and persistent” and therefore, irrespective of the seriousness of the original
matters, a custodial sentence can be imposed.
– For YRO with ISS imposed for wilful and persistent non-compliance with an
ordinary YRO, any further breach of this alternative to custody may result in
revocation and resentence to anything the court could have given originally –
including a DTO if that could have been available originally. In addition, a 4 month
DTO can be given for any non-imprisonable offences (Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 Schedule 2, paragraph 6, (2)(c) and (11) – (15)
– Documents needed would be a PSR which addresses the breach itself, the
response to the order, the original offences and the new offences.
In these circumstances the PSR addresses:
• The breach itself – the nature and circumstances of the breach, including the
aggravating and mitigating factors of the breach such as total non-compliance, wilful
and persistent, or a technical breach within a period of general compliance and
good progress
• The original offences for which the order was imposed – these should be fully
analysed just as they would have been in the original PSR or SSR. Add to this
analysis anything that has changed such as no further offending for XX months until
the new offences were committed, changes to lifestyle, thinking, attitudes etc (for
better or worse).
• The new offences analyse these as you would for any PSR, highlighting the
aggravating and mitigating factors to assist the court in deciding the offence
seriousness. Set these into the context of the young person’s compliance/lack
of compliance with the order. Why were they committed now, and why was the
community order not able to prevent the offending? Was it due to the young person
not wanting to change or were there external factors such as family breakdown,
homelessness, exclusion from school, unemployment etc that led to the new
offences? Consider the new offences and the original offences together – is there
a pattern? What are the themes or common factors, if any? Is there an escalation
in frequency and/or seriousness or are the new offences part of a gradual overall
reduction in frequency or seriousness?
• Proposal – consider whether a custodial sentence is the only justifiable option
(“so serious”) or for YRO, YRO with ISS and YRO with IF, whether the wilful and
persistent failure to comply makes custody inevitable. The court must take account
of the time already served on the order and any progress made. Also consider
other factors such as whether compensation has been paid and whether reparative
activities have been undertaken. Consider whether there is any realistic alternative
to a custodial sentence – a different type of community order or something that
is more suitable to the age and maturity of the young person and their ability to
comply. Can the risk of offending and risk of harm to others be managed within the
community, given that the existing order was not successful in this?
3.15.9 Sentencing Restrictions
There are restrictions on the types of order which can be combined or run
concurrently:
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
49
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
• YRO – the court must revoke the existing YRO if it wants to make a new YRO for
the new offences. It may resentence the old offences – in effect making a new YRO
for everything. The offences taken together must be serious enough to warrant a
community sentence
• YRO with ISS or IF – the offences taken together must be so serious that custody
would be given if YRO with ISS or Intensive Fostering were not available. Also, the
offences must be imprisonable and under 15s must also be persistent offenders
*. If the YRO with ISS is made for “wilful and persistent” non-compliance with an
ordinary YRO the usual criteria do not apply.
• Reparation Order – for the new offences the court can make a fine, absolute or
conditional discharge or another reparation order, but if it wants to make a YRO for
the new offences the reparation order must be revoked **
• DTO – if the court makes a DTO for the new offences then the YOS should ask the
court to revoke any referral order or reparation order in the interests of justice. Short
YROs should similarly be revoked but long YROs may be left in place to pick up
again on the young person’s DTO release.
• Referral Order – the referral order may be extended on one occasion only – which
would be a way of adding new offences. In any other circumstances of noncompliance with the referral order together with new offences, the referral order
must be revoked. The court may resentence the original offences along with the
new, or it may simply revoke the old order and make a new sentence for the new
offences alone. Accurate recording is needed.
• Conditional discharge – further offending will breach the conditional discharge but
the breach is not an offence in itself. The court may allow the conditional discharge
to continue and make any new sentence for the new offence(s), or the court may
revoke the conditional discharge and sentence the old and the new offences
together to a new order.
* Persistent offender is not defined in the legislation. The Sentencing Guidelines Council suggests that a young person
may be considered to be a persistent offender if they have been reprimanded, finally warned, conditionally cautioned or
convicted of imprisonable offences on at least 3 occasions in the last 12 months. Note that persistent means someone who
has persisted in their offending despite efforts to stop them, and is not the same as someone who is merely prolific – ie a
large number of offences but less than 3 convictions/warnings.
** when there is a reparation order with no breach, the court must revoke the reparation order if it makes a YRO for new
offences but there is no power to resentence the original offences – they must just be written off.
3.15.10 In all cases of revocation and resentence – with a breach and / or new
offences, it is essential that the details of the court’s decision are recorded
fully and accurately.
The record needs to show clearly:
• if any order has been simply revoked, the offences for which it was made ‘finish’ at
that point
• if any order is revoked and resentenced, all the original offences must be listed
under the new order that is made
• if any offences attract No Separate Penalty they ‘finish’ at that point and will not be
included in any new penalty
• once a breach is dealt with, either on its merits, or by revocation and resentencing,
it is ‘finished’ and will not be included as an offence in the new order – only the
actual original criminal offences will appear. The fact that there was a breach will
remain on record and will be a relevant context in which to view the new order, but
the breach should no longer be listed as an offence if the new order is breached or
otherwise eligible for revocation and resentence in the future.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
50
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 1 PSR Template
Pre-Sentence Report
This is a Pre-Sentence report as defined in section 162 of the Powers of Criminal
Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Standards
on Youth Justice, with the duty to have regard to the aim of preventing offending and
with the duty under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to have
regard to the welfare of the child.
Information contained in this report is confidential and should only be used for
the purpose for which it has been written.
Court Information
Court
Ref.
Court Name
Hearing
Date
Petty Sessional Area &
Supervising Court
Date Report Requested
Date Report Completed
Young Person
Name
Age
DOB
Address
&
Postcode
Offence Details
Offence(s) & Date of Offence
Youth Offending Officer
Name & Date
YOT & Telephone
Signature
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
51
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Sources of Information
Offence Analysis and Victim Impact
Young Person Assessment
Parenting Assessment
Assessment of Risk to the Community, Likelihood of Reoffending & Risk of Harm to
Others
Conclusion
Proposal for Sentence
Level of Intervention:
YRO Requirements:
Activity Requirement
Attendance Centre
Requirement
Curfew Requirement
Drug Testing Requirement
Drug Treatment
Requirement
Education Requirement
Return to Section Contents |
»
Electronic Monitoring
Requirement
Exclusion Requirement
Mental Health Treatment
Requirement
Programme Requirement
Intensive Fostering
Prohibited Activity
Requirement
Residence Requirement
Intensive Supervision and
Surveillance (based on the
current ISSP)
Intoxicating Substance
Treatment Requirement
Local Authority Residence
Requirement
Supervision Requirement
Unpaid Work Requirement
(16/17 years)
Return to Main Contents |
»
52
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 2 Dangerousness
‘Dangerousness’ and Sentences for Public Protection
The following guidance is drawn from the legislation itself; incorporating both the
Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the amendments made by the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008
Further information is included from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
YOS staff are advised to read both the legislation itself and the other guidance.
The following notes are a summary of the process for
assessing dangerousness and determining whether a
case should be sent to the Crown Court.
The CJA 2003 created 2 new sentences for public protection, available only in
the Crown Court. These powers have been amended by the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008, (effective from 14th July 2008).
The powers apply to both youths (10 – 17 years inclusive) and adults, although there
are some small differences in the criteria and the powers.
The powers and requirements relating to dangerousness apply to anyone convicted
of a ‘specified offence’.
The court assesses whether the defendant meets the criteria that “there is a
significant risk of serious harm to the public from the commission by him of further
specified offences.”
All 3 parts of this definition must be met before being classed as ‘dangerous’:
1) that there is a significant risk, 2) of serious harm to the public, and 3) the risk
comes from further specified offences
Significant risk means more than a mere possibility of something happening. A useful
guide is to consider it as more than a 50/50 chance.
Serious harm is defined in the Act as “Death or serious personal injury, whether
physical or psychological”. It is usually means injuries of at least GBH level
The specified offences are all violent or sexual offences.
Some of the specified offences are identified as “serious offences” – these carry
10 years or more imprisonment.
Very common offences such as Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) and
Section 3 of the Public Order Act: Affray, are both specified offences. GBH s20 is a
‘specified offence’, whereas GBH s18 is a ‘serious offence’. All arson offences are
‘serious offences’.
Anyone assessed by the Youth or Magistrate’s Court as meeting the dangerousness
criteria AND where it is considered that the minimum appropriate term of 2 years
actual time in custody is met, must be sent to the Crown Court where the judge may
use one of the Public Protection Sentences. (These are explained below.)
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
53
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
The assessment of dangerousness
In making the assessment of dangerousness, the Court must consider all information
about the offence and it may consider any information about the offender and any
other pattern of behaviour; this includes previous convictions (anywhere in the world)
but also includes other behaviour which may not have resulted in a conviction.
Serious Specified offences:
Having considered all the information, if the judge decides that the offender does
meet the criteria for a ‘dangerous offender’, the following options are available:
Adults
If the offence carries Life, and Life is justified, Life must be given.
If Life is not available for that offence, or not justified, the court may impose an
Indeterminate Sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection. The additional criteria
are that either, there is a conviction for a serious specified offence (listed in the new
Schedule 15A), that predates the new offence, or the appropriate minimum tariff for
the new offence would be at least 2 years
Or
The court may impose an extended sentence, provided the appropriate minimum
term is at least 4 years, or there is a previous conviction for a serious specified
offence (listed in the new Schedule 15A), that predates the new offence, in which
case there is no minimum tariff but, if the term was to be less than 12 months it must
become 12 months.
Or
The court may impose any other lawful sentence.
Youths
If the offence carries Life, and Life is justified, Life must be given.
If life is not available for that offence, or not justified, the court may impose an
Indeterminate Sentence of Detention for Public Protection, provided the appropriate
tariff is at least 2 years
Or
The court may impose an extended sentence of detention provided the appropriate
term is at least 4 years
Or
The court may impose any other lawful sentence.
It seems that for youths, the choice between an indeterminate sentence of detention
and an extended sentence is purely at the discretion of the judge, there being no
additional criteria or restrictions for either. However, case law strongly emphasises
that the circumstances in which such a sentence is imposed should be very limited
even where the criteria are met.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
54
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Ordinary Specified Offences
Adults and Youths
If the court determines that the offender meets the ‘dangerousness’ criteria then the
Court may impose an Extended Sentence for all ordinary ‘Specified’ offences
Or
The court may impose any other lawful sentence.
Presumption of Dangerousness - repealed
The presumption that an adult who has committed a previous specified offence is
‘dangerous’ has been removed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment of dangerous but there is no
longer any presumption of dangerousness:- it has to be assessed afresh for each
conviction.
For youths there has never been a presumption of dangerousness and nothing has
changed in this respect.
In all cases:
An Indeterminate Sentence has no fixed end date.
An Indeterminate Sentence should only be imposed if the appropriate minimum
tariff is at least 2 years – that is, the offender will spend at least 2 years in custody
before becoming eligible for parole. While the judge will usually specify a minimum
term to be served before Parole is considered, there is no end date. If Parole is not
granted, the offender will never be released.
An Extended Sentence is a determinate prison term of at least 4 years – equivalent
to at least 2 years in custody – and up to the maximum specified in law for the
offence. Release is automatic at the halfway point of the custodial term. The custodial
sentence is followed by a period of Extended Licence, starting when the whole
custodial term, including the licence period, has been served. The extended licence
can be up to 5 years for a violent offence, and up to 8 years for a sexual offence.
Even though it considers the dangerousness criteria to be met, the court does
not have to impose a public protection sentence – it may impose any other lawful
sentence instead. In particular, the court must have regard to a youth’s capacity
to grow and change rapidly so that the concerns about dangerousness may have
passed during an ordinary sentence.
If the Crown Court decides that the dangerousness criteria are not met, the
sentences for public protection are not available and all the usual sentencing options
take their place.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
55
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Seriousness – this is about what actually happened
Seriousness is addressed in the Offence Analysis section of the PSR.
The court considers each offence assuming there was a not guilty plea.
The court considers any aggravating factors about the offence
these include:
Use of weapons
Targetted or repeat victim
Vulnerable victim
Link with drugs of alcohol
Hate crime
Racist motive
Planning
Intent
Sophistication
High value
Serious injury
The court considers any mitigating factors about the offence
these include:
Low value
Minimal damage
No weapons
No planning
Goods recovered
Provocation
Good intention or motive
Injury or damage caused accidentally
The court considers any aggravating factors about the offender;
Recent and relevant previous convictions
Committed on bail (or while RILAA)
The court considers any mitigating factors about the offender
Early guilty plea / full admissions
Previous good character – no previous offences
Personal mitigation – family issues, bereavement etc
Dangerousness – this is about what might happen
in the future
The current offence, previous offences, behaviour and conduct of the young person
must be re-analysed to pick out the particular factors which may be relevant to there
being a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences
Relevant factors will include:
Intentional use of weapons
Behaviour which is out of control
Disproportionate use of force
Hate crime/racist/deliberately targetted victim
Random, unpredictable violence
Lack of remorse/understanding of impact
Pattern suggests high risk of repeated violent/sexual offending
Breach Reports/interventions has not reduced risk
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
0 - 14
15 - 32
33 - 64
Medium likelihood of
reoffending
AND/OR
Medium ROSH
High likelihood of
reoffending
AND/OR
High or very high
ROSH
Asset Score
(including static
factors)
Low likelihood of
reoffending
AND
Low ROSH
Child or young
person profile
Return to Section Contents |
»
Intensive
Enhanced
Standard
Intervention Level
12
(equivalent
to 3 x
weekly)
(equivalent
to 1 x
weekly)
4
fortnightly)
4
(equivalent to
1 x weekly)
2
(equivalent to
1x
fortnightly)
Ensuring control
AND
Enabling
help/change
AND
Enabling
compliance
Repairing harm
Enabling
help/change
AND
Enabling
compliance
Repairing harm
Number of Contacts
Function
per month
1st
Remainder
3 months
of order
2
1
Enabling
(equivalent
(once per
compliance
to 1 x
month)
Repairing harm
Reparation
Supervision, or
Unpaid work, or
Attendance centre,
or curfew
Reparation
Supervision, or
Unpaid work, or
Attendance centre
or Curfew
Programme
requirement
Drug
treatment/testing
education
Reparation
Supervision
Unpaid work
Attendance centre
Curfew
Programme
requirement
Drug
treatment/testing
Education
Prohibited activity
Exclusion
Other electronic
monitoring
Possible
Proposal
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
56
PSR Guidance – Appendix 3
YJB Scaled Approach
Return to Main Contents |
»
57
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 4 Parenting
Parental Bind Overs
Parental Bind Overs are made under S150 of the Powers of the Criminal Court
(Sentencing) Act 2000 which says - paraphrased:
Where a child or young person is convicted of an offence the sentencing court has
the power for anyone under 18 and a duty for anyone under 16 to make a bind over
if (a) it would be desirable in the interests of preventing further offending and (b) if it
does not exercise the power/duty the court must state in open court that it does not
think a bind over would prevent offending, and why it doesn’t think so.
The bind over can be for up to £1000 and for a period of up to 3 years, or until
offender is 18, whichever is shorter. If a parent unreasonably refuses consent to be
bound over he/she can be fined up to £1000
Parenting Orders
Parenting Orders are still made under s 8 and 9 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
although this has been amended and added to by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act
2003 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003 respectively. Section 8 of the Act says that if
the relevant condition is fulfilled then it may make a parenting order in respect of any
child or young person. However, it qualifies this in section 9 by adding that where the
child or young person is under 16 then the court shall make a parenting order unless
it is not satisfied that the relevant condition is fulfilled, in which case it must state this
and say why.
Parent’s attendance at court
Although it is desirable for a parent to be in court when a parenting order is made,
this is not actually essential. The requirement in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
under s.9(3) is that the parent must have had the nature and implications of the order
explained to him/her before it can be made. If the parent is not in court it is possible
for the court or YOS to write to the parent, explaining that a Parenting Order is going
to be made, giving them the information relevant to S9(3) and informing them of the
date of the hearing. If the parent, having received this information, does not attend
the hearing the court can still make the Parenting Order.
This ensures that parents do not avoid their responsibilities simply by avoiding court.
There is excellent guidance on this in a Joint Home Office, Department of
Constitutional Affairs and YJB Circular: Parenting Orders and Contracts for Criminal
Conduct and Anti-Social Behaviour issued on 24th February 2004
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
58
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 5
Addendum Template with Guidance Notes
Addendum Report
This is a Pre-Sentence report as defined in section 162 of the Powers of Criminal
Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Standards
on Youth Justice, with the duty to have regard to the aim of preventing offending and
with the duty under Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to have
regard to the welfare of the child.
Information contained in this report is confidential and should only be used for
the purpose for which it has been written.
Court Information
Court
Ref.
Court Name
Hearing
Date
Petty Sessional Area &
Supervising Court
Date Report Requested
Date Report Completed
Young Person
Name
Age
DOB
Address
&
Postcode
Remember to use the young person’s own address and not the address of a custodial establishment
Offence Details
Additional Offence(s) & Dates of Offence(s)
(Since the original PSR was written)
List in Chronological order
If there are no new offences write “None”. (This
makes it clear that you have not simply forgotten to
include them)
Youth Offending Officer
Name & Date
YOT & Telephone
Signature
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
59
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Sources of Information
Refer to original PSR and add any new sources
Note any gaps in information or problems obtaining information
Offence Analysis and Victim Impact
If there are no new offences this section is not needed. Either delete the heading or
simply state “There are no new offences. Please refer to the PSR dated xxxxxxxxx
for details of the original offences”
Young Person Assessment
Include:
New information that was not known when the PSR was written
Information which has changed or been reinterpreted since the PSR was written
Make reference to the original PSR as necessary
Remember that the information should be analytical rather than descriptive.
Comment on the significance of the information – how does it help to understand the young person’s offending and what does it
mean for the risk of future offending, suitability for any particular sentence and the likely compliance with the proposed sentence?
Parenting Assessment
Include:
New information that was not known when the PSR was written
Focus on anything that changes your views on parental bindover and / or parenting order
Parents’ support for new proposal, where applicable
Assessment of Risk to the Community
Include:
New information that was not known when the PSR was written
Information that has changed or been reinterpreted since the PSR was written.
Ensure that your risk assessment is supported with evidence from the offence
analysis and/or the assessment of the young person
Make reference to the original PSR as necessary
Conclusion and Proposal for Sentence
Make reference to the original PSR as necessary
Draw together all the new information from the addendum and comment on whether,
and to what extent, it alters the conclusion of the PSR
Either:
Reaffirm your original proposal – noting any minor changes to length etc
Or
Set out your new proposal in the same way that you would for a PSR
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
60
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 6
Deferred Sentence Report Template with
Guidance Notes
Deferred Sentence Report
This is a Deferred Sentence Report prepared in accordance with section 1A(4) of the
Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (as inserted by Sch 23 of the
Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Information contained in this report is confidential and should only be used for
the purpose for which it has been written.
Court Information
Court
Ref.
Court Name
Hearing
Date
Petty Sessional Area &
Supervising Court
Date Report Requested
Date Report Completed
Period of Deferment from: to:
Requirements of Deferred
Sentence:
Young Person
Name
Age
DOB
Address
&
Postcode
Offence Details
Offence(s) & Date of Offence
Youth Offending Officer
Name & Date
YOT & Telephone
Signature
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
61
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
Sources of Information
In order to prepare this Deferred Sentence Report I have:
Include all sources of information as for a PSR
Note whether or not you are also the supervising officer for the case
Although deferred sentences are not covered in national standards or the YJB Case
Management Guidance, it would be good practice to have completed an Asset and
ROSH at the start of the deferred sentence and to have reviewed this for the
Deferred Sentence report.
Where there is a PSR make reference to it here and have it available for the court
Details of the Deferred Sentence
Give concise details of the reasons for the deferred sentence
Explain any requirements that were included and the reasons for these
Explain what sentence would have been passed if the court had not deferred sentence, and the sentence the court
indicated was likely if the young person complied with the deferred sentence.
Note: the court may have been thinking of a custodial sentence but will make a community sentence if the young perosn
complies, or may have been thinking of a community sentence but will make a fine, discharge or reparation order if the
young person complies.
Young Person’s Response during the Period of Deferment
Analyse the young person’s overall compliance with the deferred sentence period.
Where the young person has complied and made good progress ensure that their
achievements are fully recognised.
Where there has been failure to comply, analyse this, giving reasons for the problem,
the YOT’s response to enable compliance, and whether the young person got over
the problem or has been returned to court early.
Consider whether the failure to comply was due to the young person’s unwillingness
or whether other circumstances in their life made compliance difficult.
With regard to any specific requirements that were included, comment on compliance
and progress. Explain any changes to the young person’s behaviour, attitudes, risk of
reoffending etc that have occurred as a result of the deferred sentence interventions.
Support your claims with evidence.
Where there has been failure to comply and/or lack of progress, explain the reasons
for this.
Conclusion
Where additional information is necessary refer the court to the original PSR or SSR.
You may need to comment on anything which has changed in the young person’s life
since the PSR/SSR was written
Where relevant, include information on the level of risk of re-offending and risk of
serious harm. Explain the reasons for, and the effect of, any change, or lack of
change, during the period of deferment.
Conclusion
Draw together the information presented in the report to assist the court in deciding
how to sentence the young person.
Where there was non-compliance or failure to make the expected progress, what would be the most suitable
sentence? If the court was considering custody, is this inevitable now, or can an alternative still be proposed?
What is the likelihood of compliance?
When there has been compliance and/or progress, what would be the most suitable sentence now? Does this
take account of the restriction on liberty already “served” during the deferred sentence period?
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
62
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 7
Gatekeeping Sheet
KENT YOUTH OFFENDING TEAM
COURT REPORT & REFERRAL ORDER PANEL REPORT
QUALITY ASSURANCE FORM
Report written by:
Defendant:
DOB:
Date requested:
Date completed:
Offences:
1.
a)
b)
c)
d)
2.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
3.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Are the sources adequate and identified?
Have they been sufficiently verified?
Are gaps (e.g. no CPS package) acknowledged?
Please identify
Asset completed and referred to?
YES
NO
N/A
OFFENCE ANALYSIS
Are the following factors addressed?
Remorse/regret
Pattern of offending behaviour
Evidence of targeting
Racial motivation
Extent of planning/pre-meditation
Authors assessment separate from young person’s account
VICTIM ISSUES
NB For PSRs, comments relating to the victims must be
confined to information contained in CPS papers
a)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Have the victims been contacted? (Referral Orders – are
they attending the Panel?)
Impact on victim
Vulnerability of victim
The offender’s awareness of consequences to the victim, self
and family
Has Restorative Justice been considered?
ASSESSMENT OF YOUNG PERSON
Are the following factors addressed?
Accommodation/living arrangements
Family and personal relationships
Substance misuse
Education/training/employment
Care Plan, if ‘looked after’ child
Lifestyle
Past/current response to interventions
Maturity/development
Physical health
j)
Mental health
k)
Individual needs which might affect delivery of supervision
b)
c)
d)
e)
4.
Reports Gate Keeping Form
Return to Section Contents |
»
amended 01/04/10
1
Return to Main Contents |
»
63
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
5.
a)
b)
c)
d)
ASSESSMENT OF RISK
Are the following factors addressed?
Risk indicators
Protective indicators
Risk of re-offending
Risk of harm (must be addressed if violent/sexual offence)
a)
b)
CONCLUSION
Assessment of seriousness?
Clear proposal? Please state:
c)
d)
e)
f)
Proposal suitable and proportional?
Outline plan of intervention included?
Likely effects of custody addressed? (including vulnerability)
Suitability for parenting order/parental bind over?
g)
Is the level of intervention (standard / enhanced / Intensive)
indicated?
Does it appear that a Management over ride has been
exercised re level of intervention?
OVERALL
Is the report?
Free of language which may discriminate or negatively
stereotype in any way?
Clear and logically structured?
Jargon free?
Has the report adequately addressed Safeguarding issues?
6.
h)
7.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
YES
NO
N/A
Re Initial Panel Reports. Has the Panel Risk Assessment
form been completed?
COMMENTS
Report Monitored by:
Report agreed:
YES/NO
Date:
G:\Forms\Gate Keeping Form
Reports Gate Keeping Form
Return to Section Contents |
»
amended 01/04/10
2
Return to Main Contents |
»
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
64
PSR Guidance – Appendix 8
Miscellaneous Legislation
Reference to legislation on:
8.1 Previous convictions
8.2 Disqualification Orders
8.3 Sex offender registration
8.4 Credit for periods spent on remand or on bail subject to certain conditions
8.1 Previous convictions
CJA 2003 s143 (2) In considering the seriousness of an offence (“the current
offence”) committed by an offender who has one or more previous convictions, the
court must treat each previous conviction as an aggravating factor if (in the case of
that conviction) the court decides that it can reasonably be so treated having regard,
in particular to (a) the nature of the offence to which the conviction relates and its relevance to the
current offence, and
(b) the time that has elapsed since the conviction.
The Home Office Explanatory notes to the Act are very useful and say, in relation to
s143 that previous convictions are aggravating where they are recent and relevant.
The relevant paragraph from the explanatory notes is reproduced below:
Section 143: Determining the seriousness of an offence
446. This section sets out certain principles the court must follow when determining
the seriousness of an offence. The court must consider the offender’s culpability in
committing the offence and any harm which the offence caused, was intended to
cause or might foreseeably have caused. Any previous convictions, where they
are recent and relevant, should be regarded as an aggravating factor which
should increase the severity of the sentence. A previous conviction is defined
by subsection (4) to mean a previous conviction by a court in the United Kingdom or
a finding of guilt in service disciplinary proceedings. The term “service disciplinary
proceedings” is defined in section 305(1). This is a strengthening of the existing
principle in section 151(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Subsection (3) re-enacts section 151(2) of that Act and provides that the fact that an
offence was committed while the offender was on bail should also be regarded as an
aggravating factor.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
65
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
8.2 Disqualification orders
Disqualification Orders were introduced by the Criminal Justice and Court Services
Act 2000
Disqualification Orders are available to both adults and youths, although the criteria
for youths are slightly different. The disqualification order is for life, although if it was
made before the offender turned 18, it can be reviewed after 5 years.
The Order disqualifies the offender from applying for, offering to do, accepting, or
doing any work with children in a regulated position. This includes:
• working with children in paid or unpaid positions whose normal duties involve caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children
• positions with normal duties involving unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible person, for example a parent (including babysitting).
A young person must be made subject to a disqualification order if, having been
convicted of an offence against a child listed in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of Schedule 4 to
the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, a senior court imposes either:
• a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, this includes DTO, S 90 or 91 and for
adults, YOI or imprisonment, or
• A hospital order, or
• A guardianship order, and
• the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is likely that the
individual will commit a further offence against a child
The offences listed in Schedule 4 are all violent or sexual offences against children
and young people.
8.3 Sex Offender Registration
Young people may be required to register with the police if they are convicted,
warned or reprimanded for certain sexual offences.
For the serious sexual offences listed below the young person would be required
to register with the police for half the equivalent adult registration period of 10, 7, 5,
and 2 years. For these the registration period begins on the date of conviction (not
sentence).
Rape (s.1)
Assault by penetration (s.2)
Causing sexual activity without consent (s.4)
Rape of a child under 13 (s.5)
Sexual assault of a child under 13 by penetration (s.6)
Offences against persons with a mental disorder (s.31 to 38)
Administering a substance with intent (s.61)
For lesser offences the youth would not be required to register unless he or she
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
66
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
is aged over 12 years and receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more in
respect of the sexual offence. For these offences the registration period begins on
the date they are sentenced.
The relevant legislation for this is the Sexual Offences Act 2003
Under section 89 of the Act the court may direct a person with parental responsibility
for the youth to comply with the notification requirements on their behalf.
8.4Credit for periods spent on remand or on bail subject to
certain conditions
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 section 21 deals with credit for
periods spent “in custody” or while “on bail subject to certain types of condition”.
It amends the CJA 2003 section 240 and PCC(S)A 2000 section 101 which relates
to DTOs.
Most of this relates to adults or other fixed terms of imprisonment – but it will also
apply to youths as follows:
• a s228 extended sentence, or
• a s91 determinate sentence, and
• to the requirement that the court takes account of time spent on remand when
calculating the length of a DTO.
It may be helpful for PSR authors to calculate the time spent subject to bail with a
tagged curfew according to the calculation below and include this in the PSR
It applies to offences committed on or after 4th April 2005 and the relevant bail period
must be since s21 of the CJ&I Act 2008 came into force
The bail must have had a curfew with an electronic monitoring condition. The curfew
must be for at least 9 hours per day.
Consider this when a young person is subject to conditional bail with a curfew –
less than 9 hours per day will not count towards time served if he gets a
custodial sentence
With a few exceptions, the period on bail with curfew and tagging must count as time
served by the offender as part of the sentence, unless the court considers it just, in
all the circumstances, not to count it as time served.
In such cases the court may direct for a lesser period to count as time served.
One reason not to count the bail period as time served, or to reduce it, would be if
the bail conditions had been breached
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
67
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
For younger offenders, who have had a tagged curfew but for less than 9 hours
per day, it may be worth noting their age and inviting the court to use discretion
to consider a lesser period spent on tagged curfew towards the time spent on
conditional bail when calculating the length of a DTO, or indeed, whether to make
a DTO at all.
The calculation is as follows:
Start with the first day on which the bail conditions applied and count that and all the
following days except for the last day (usually this would be the day of sentence).
Round this up to the nearest whole number
Divide the total by 2
This is because for most cases the curfew will be 9 – 12 hours per day so each day
subject to the curfew counts as half a day in custody.
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»
68
Kent Youth Offending Service | Report Writing Policy Version 1 | March 2011
PSR Guidance – Appendix 9
Wording for ISS Proposals
I would invite the court to consider imposing a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive
Supervision and Surveillance in this case. This Order would comprise the following
components:
An extended activity requirement for 91 days which would provide the following level of
support and supervision:
At this point you need to consider your Asset assessment and scoring. If Asset
score is 24 – 32 and/or high ROSH choose the following:
Month 1
=
20 hours per week
Month 2
=
20 hours per week
Month 3
=
10 hours per week
Months 4 – 6 =
5 hours per week
OR If your Asset score is 24 – 64 and/or high or very high ROSH, the following
could be used:
Month 1
= 25 hours per week
Month 2
= 25 hours per week
Month 3
= 25 hours per week
Months 4 – 6 = 5 hours per week
Elements included within ISS and/or supervision element would seek to address issues
around:
Education/training/employment, substance misuse, thinking and behaviour, activity
sessions, restorative justice, offending behaviour, family support, inter-personal skills as
appropriate.
A curfew requirement of 3 months (electronically monitored)
A supervision requirement for ……..state length
An extended activity requirement for 180 days which would provide the following level of
support and supervision:
Your asset score would be 33 -64 and/or very high ROSH at this point.
Months 1 – 4 = 25 hours
Months 5 – 6 = 15 hours
Months 7 – 12 = 5 hours
Elements included within ISS and/or supervision element would seek to address issues
around:
Education/training/employment, substance misuse, thinking and behaviour, activity
sessions, restorative justice, offending behaviour, family support, inter-personal skills as
appropriate.
Don’t forget to include:
A curfew requirement of 3 months (electronically monitored)
Supervision requirement for ……..state length
Return to Section Contents |
»
Return to Main Contents |
»