Justice at Last

How supremely ironic that the first episode of the long-anticipated BBC1 probation drama 'Public Enemies' was bounced off the tv schedules by a real-life murder case. It was always likely that the jury returning guilty verdicts in the Stephen Lawrence case would be big news, and so it proved with the last-minute screening of the moving BBC 1 'Panorama' special focussed on Stephens mother Doreen. The Criminal Justice System, Probation included, is often accused of not taking into account the effect of crime upon victims and this programme gives us all some valuable insight.

As the judge considers his sentencing remarks overnight, discussion has already begun regarding the likely outcome. Although both convicted men are now in their 30's, they will have to be dealt with as if they were minors, and initially 'Detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure'. This strikes me as pretty much academic as such a sentence automatically becomes a Life Sentence on attaining the age of majority. The key bit is the length of the tariff, or period of imprisonment that must be served before consideration for release by the Parole Board. The situation has changed significantly over the 18 years since the murder took place, with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introducing much higher tariffs in relation to certain types of aggravated offences. 

Although there is bound to be concern in some quarters that these two men will still have cheated justice to some extent when their tariffs are announced, it must be remembered that release will only eventually come about when the Parole Board are convinced that it is safe to do so. At this very moment, somewhere in London, two probation officers will already be engaged in the process of making preparations for that process in the form of Post Life Sentence Reports. Over the coming years they will have the task of getting to know as much as possible about these two men in order to make well-informed judgements that will inform the process, and it's not easy.

Understandably perhaps, there is a view in certain quarters that probation officers are quite naive and gullible. All that is required is to 'tell them what they want to hear' and release becomes relatively straightforward. Well, I must disabuse them. It's not for nothing that this blog refers to the 'mysteries and magic' that is 'probation.' Despite the claims for OASys, making assessments is not and never can be a science in my view, but rather will remain an imprecise art. In view of this, experience tells me that one of the most significant factors is the length of time a case can remain with the same officer. In my career, in sentence planning meetings, I have often been the only 'expert' in the room due purely to having supervised the case from the beginning and remembered key facts, noticed differing versions in the prisoners story and subtle changes in their attitude, demeanor and body language.

Of course what I'm describing is a situation where the prisoner wishes to make progress on an indeterminate sentence. In a sense it's much easier to make a judgement about risk where the prisoner makes it plain that they have no intention of changing - they simply don't get released. So the key question is, as put to me regularly by a long-term denying life sentence prisoner, 'if you don't believe me, how will you know when I'm telling the truth?' In short a very good question, to which I routinely gave the somewhat lame reply 'I just will!' 

It's sad I know, but over the Christmas and New Year break I found myself watching an old edition of a game show called 'Goldenballs' on an obscure cable tv channel. For those unfamiliar with the format, contestants compete for potentially very large sums of money by playing a game of chance, but spiced up by the ability to either rob their opponent or share the winnings with them. They basically have to convince their opposite number that they are telling the truth in wishing to share the loot and not lying in order to steal the lot. I have to say an unnerving programme for a probation officer, with some very uncomfortable professional similarities.    
     

      

Thoughts on a Difficult Case

Following on from my recent piece about Jon Venables, it would seem that the news item was  merely the curtain raiser for the subsequent main article in the Sunday Times Magazine last Sunday 3rd April. Written by David James Smith, the author of The Sleep of Reason : The James Bulger Case, one cannot help but feel the timing is designed to try and influence the Parole process later this year. 

Reading the article with dismay, I was particularly concerned at the level of information the journalist has supposedly amassed and I couldn't help but speculate how he seems to be able to quote verbatim from confidential running sheets, contact logs and internal reports? I find this quite shocking and a serious breach of confidentiality and professional practice by someone very close to a current case. So yet more information is now out in the public domain thus sadly serving to make a difficult case even more so. The main thesis of this article - which is behind the Murdoch paywall of course - is that the whole rehabilitation process has been chaotic. Of course not being involved it's very difficult if not impossible to say, but several things struck me as I read the article.

This case serves to highlight the complete separation of services between child and adult, between Social Services and Probation, between YOI and adult Prison. With hindsight it was extremely unfortunate that, having on the one hand successfully had the earlier 15 year tariff set aside in order to try and avoid the trauma of transfer to adult prison, the trauma of release came just at the point of the transfer of responsibility to the adult Probation Service. Now I can't be sure at what stage this occurred because this case has never been treated 'normally' at all. For instance there was never a transfer to YOI but very unusually Jon was kept at the Secure Unit instead. However, there will have been a transfer of responsibility and no doubt it will have been very unsettling for all concerned, not least Jon.

Of course all this confirms the absolute necessity of establishing and maintaining the 
relationship between client and supervising officer. In lifer cases it was always felt to be good practice that the officer had a 'pair', ideally of the opposite sex in order to bring a different perspective as well as to try and ensure continuity. This will have been even more important in a case like this involving issues of abnormal development, arrested adolescence and transition into adulthood. I would suggest that continuity of supervising officers would be absolutely vital not only in developing good professional and trusting relationships, but also in being able to more accurately assess risk.

It also reminds me as to exactly why it was felt appropriate that probation officers had a social work background. Like it or not, much of our 'offending behaviour' work with clients takes us into issues of welfare and emotional needs for which we are becoming increasingly ill-equipped.

Finally, I can't help noticing that the author continues to use the politically correct term of Offender Manager instead of Probation Officer. In a case like this I would have expected it to be handled by a very experienced pair of hands and not at all suitable for a Probation Services Officer. However you just never know nowadays and of course Offender Manager can mean either.   

Another Cautionary Tale

At some point in a probation officers career you will inherit a seriously old case, probably a lifer who's gone way over their tariff. The file will be enormous, tatty, very badly organised and will bear the evidence of numerous colleagues involvement over many years. I inherited such a case from a colleague some years ago upon their retirement. They had in turn picked it up several years before and in total I think I counted seven previous officers handiwork. A Parole Board Review was approaching and to be honest my intention was to do what everyone else that had gone before had done and just rehash the information with some updating following an interview.

It was a very sad case. The guy had received a life sentence many years previous for an arson committed on a government building. The fire was started with paper with his name and address on and therefore detection was relatively straightforward. Indeed the suspicion was that he wanted to be caught. Nowadays I would expect a psychiatric report to have been prepared before sentencing, but the file showed this had not been requested. He had previous convictions for arson and although only given a relatively short tariff, was now some 30 years beyond that and with little or no prospect of release. 

In trying to find a way forward I soon discovered that he had enjoyed several periods of residence in a secure hostel on ROTL or Release on Temporary Licence. It had been relatively successful, but he had incontinence issues and the hostel were concerned about him being a smoker and his casual use of matches. Indeed the prison informed me that small fires were prone to break out for no apparent reason wherever he was. Not surprisingly the hostel seemed loathe to have him back again, the risk was simply too great.

I discovered there were some relatives who might be prepared to take him, but to be honest my instinct told me they would not be able to cope. In reading the file it seemed that this chaps fascination with fire had been as the tragic result of witnessing his brother die in a house fire when he was quite young and very impressionable. I went to see him, but was not really prepared for what I found. A sad old man missing most of his teeth, no doubt due in part to the poor prison diet and looking at least ten years older than his stated age of 64. Despite this he had a wicked glint and seemed happy enough, even though he was suffering from several medical conditions that impaired his mobility and could only push himself about on the wing in a wheelchair. 

I later took the opportunity of reading the prison file which amazingly still contained a black and white photo of a very handsome seventeen year old taken when in Borstal. I found the contrast so utterly sad and depressing and wondered at just what point he had given up and accepted that home was prison. If ever a definition of institutionalisation was required, here it was. All a very sobering experience I can tell you for someone approaching a not hugely dissimilar age myself.

I mulled things over with the seconded prison probation officer before heading back home. We both felt pretty negative about the whole situation. I later heard that the Parole Hearing had been postponed at the prisoners request and the file duly went back into the bottom drawer. Months and months went by when out of the blue the prison probation officer telephoned with what he called 'surprising news'. It seems that this officer had decided to review the file completely and check a few facts. He wanted to try and find the newspaper cuttings about the house fire all those years earlier, but they seemed to be missing. He then got permission to do a trawl for the brothers death certificate, but again drew a blank. Finally he was authorised to ask the police to check out the details surrounding the death of the brother, only for them to later report that the brother was alive and well and living in a major city.

After some further forensic investigation it transpired that the whole story about the house fire must have come about as a result of some sloppy interviewing and suggestive theorising by a probation officer who was looking for evidence to support a pre-conceived hunch. Some vulnerable or emotionally damaged clients can be susceptible to suggestion and prone to conflation and this seems to have been the case here. Every subsequent officer had merely built upon this story and it had become established as truth to be repeated ad nauseam.

So, the inevitable question on my lips was what was the guys reaction when the truth was put to him? He had initially denied it and refused to discuss it, but after careful perseverance he had eventually accepted that it was not true. I still find this a chilling example of how our work with clients should never be regarded as routine or our response and intervention constrained by theory or pre-conceived notions. In this line of work a relatively open mind is necessary as messing with peoples lives is a serious business that has consequences and we are therefore duty bound to try and do the very best we can, albeit often in difficult situations. 

A Worrying Case

I find the case of PC Stephen Mitchell who was convicted last year of two rapes, three indecent assaults and six counts of misconduct in public office worrying for a whole host of reasons. It's not just that a serving police officer felt able to use his priviledged and trusted position to abuse vulnerable women, it's how did he get into the police force in the first place?

It transpires that before applying to Northumbria Police, he had served in the army where he had been accused of sexually assaulting young male soldiers. The matter was due to go to trial at Edinburgh High Court in 1997 but never progressed because the victims declined to give evidence. Of course this in itself was sufficient to preclude any employment as a police officer and even though Mitchell did not make any disclosure, it seems incredible that either army references were not taken up, or if they were that the MOD failed to inform Northumbria.

I should mention that because Mitchell appears to have been a non-discriminatory sex offender, in that he has abused young boys as well as women, this puts him in one of the most serious categories of sex offender. No doubt this was one reason that the Judge requested psychiatric reports in addition to a PSR before passing sentence. 

As if this wasn't enough though we also learn that in 2006 Mitchell was discovered by colleagues to have had sex with a woman who had turned up at the police station drunk saying she had lost her keys. Mitchell gave her a lift home, but was seen to return later alone after his shift ended. A disciplinary hearing required him to resign, but due to a failure in process this could not be enforced and in 2008 he was re-instated. Incredibly a senior police officer is reported as telling the BBC "When he got his job back, we effectively put him in a cupboard. We knew we had to keep him away from the public."

Speaking after the trial, Northumbria Police temporary deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell said:

"We acknowledge that this investigation has highlighted some failings within Northumbria Police at both the recruitment stage and when subsequent allegations were made during Mitchell's service with the force. Mitchell failed to disclose information which would have prevented him from being appointed as a Northumbria Police Officer, but this was not identified when he applied to join the force."

He also said Mitchell had been subject to investigations after complaints by three women.
Mr Campbell said the inquiries were carried out independently but there was not enough evidence to prosecute. But he said if the complaints had been investigated together, action against Mitchell would have been likely to have been carried out sooner.

It seems clear to me that something very serious happened at Northumbria Police and some very hefty compensation claims are quite likely from a whole string of victims. He had met all the women through his work as a police officer. All were vulnerable being mostly drug users and he plied them with heroin. One was disabled. In total sixteen women were put through the ordeal of having to give evidence against Mitchell, some so scared that they were hidden behind a screen. Even so in total he was aquitted of three counts of rape, three indecent assaults and nine counts of misconduct in public office. In relation to the guilty verdicts, after a week of deliberations the Judge allowed 10 to 2 majority verdicts, so a re-trial was a real possibility.

In the end the Judge decided that two life sentences were appropriate, rather than an Indeterminate Public Protection sentence. In setting the tariff at a slightly baffling seven and a half years before consideration of release he stated 'if at all'. Without doubt this will prove a most challenging case for the allocated probation officer over the coming years.

A Conundrum

The case of Stephen Griffiths serves to graphically illustrate a problem that society has yet to find a solution for. The self-styled 'crossbow cannibal' who was sentenced yesterday at Leeds Crown Court having pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and given a 'whole life' tariff was clearly dangerous and suffered from a serious personality disorder. We know this because the signs were there from quite early on and he is reported as telling his probation officer that he would kill when he reached his thirties.

I'm pretty sure the probation officer did not need telling because Griffiths had been in touch with psychiatric services from the age of at least 17. He spent periods at Rampton Special Hospital and was treated as an outpatient at two other psychiatric hospitals right up to 2009. Although he was assessed as 'highly dangerous' crucially psychiatrists said he was not suffering from a mental illness and therefore was regarded as 'not treatable'. This is extremely significant because it means that the powers available under the Mental Health Act cannot be invoked.

The conundrum society faces is that basically no matter how sure we are as to a person's dangerousness, their liberty cannot be denied before they commit a serious offence. If you like a situation like this is at the extreme alternative end of the very broad health and safety spectrum. Most probation officers will know of similar scary clients that cross their path, but until they commit that serious so-called index offence, there's seemingly nothing that can be done.

I've always had an interest in forensic psychiatry and psychology and I know from experience that there are a relatively significant group of people in touch with psychiatric services who display equally worrying behaviours and symptoms. But can anything be done? We already have thousands of prisoners in custody under the terms of Indeterminate Public Protection sentences who should be released. The problem is that everyone knows that some of them - estimated by one Governor to be about 40 - are very dangerous. The problem is, which 40? 

As regards Griffiths, I think the prognosis is extremely poor and the Prison Service will be greatly tested ensuring that he does not take his own life, or that of another whilst in prison. For these reasons, not withstanding his supposed 'untreatable' condition, I feel he will be transferred to Special Hospital sooner rather than later. 

So, Does Prison Work?

It's a ridiculous question of course, but one we all feel obliged to address ever since Michael Howard made it his slogan some 20 years ago for unashamed political ends. In many respects the mess we're in now is a direct result of criminal justice matters becoming a political football. The answer is not conducive to a simplistic soundbite response but if pressed I would have to say it's obvious and 'yes and no'.

Since the abolition of the death penalty, imprisonment for life is the only sanction available for the most serious offences of murder, rape or arson. To the extent that a persons liberty is removed, the requirement for punishment and public protection are both satisfied and therefore prison can be said to work. However, virtually all life sentence prisoners will be released into the community at some stage and it has to be recognised that prison almost certainly damages everyone. This was confirmed recently by the governor of HMP High Down during the BBC Newsnight programme.

One of the reasons why many lifers go way past their tariff before release is that they've been affected adversely by their incarceration, in the most serious cases leading to a condition commonly referred to as institutionalisation. In order to try and deal with this takes time and great care and is not always successful. At best re-integration into society is difficult for this group as it will invariably involve constructing an entirely new life as much if not all of their former life will have either been destroyed or disappeared. In this regard prison can be said to have failed. 

In relation to long and medium term determinate sentences imposed for serious offences, prison again satisfies the dual requirements of punishment and public protection. There is less danger of institutionalisation and with the possibility of gaining early release on Parole Licence, every incentive to take part in programmes and courses that might address offending behaviour and possibly improve employability upon release. However, such long term sentences can have a very negative affect on relationships with many failing and the difficulty of gaining employment from a long prison sentence cannot be over estimated. In a sense, whether in these cases prison can be said to have 'worked' or not will depend on how each prisoner responded to the sentence. For some it will prove to be the turning point in their life and they do not return. For others, they become more determined not to get caught next time and will have picked up lots of tips on better execution and avoidance of detection.  

Where prison can be said to almost certainly fail is in relation to short sentences. Even so for some the so called 'short, sharp shock' might work, but for the majority it might have the opposite effect and they come to realise that prison is not that bad, in fact it can serve as a welcome respite from the chaotic drug and alcohol-fuelled world of unemployment and misery outside. The trouble is that they're typically not in long enough to take part in programmes or courses and if serving less than 12 months, will not be under any statutory supervision upon release. However, their stay in prison might just be long enough so that they lose their accommodation, any employment, relationships and community support for things like drug treatment and regaining any combination of these upon release is not easy.

Not surprising then that the re-offending rates for this group is extremely high. In essence, any short term benefit that society might derive from having a 'rest' from such offenders, is more than outweighed by them being rapidly returned in a worse state than they went in. Not a very intelligent way for society to tackle this group in my view. Nor is it to build more prisons and fill them with yet more short term prisoners. Ken Clarke is definitely on the right track and Michael Howard and the rest of the bleating right wing will have to get used to the idea that a financial recession has finally brought some commonsense to prevail. We are fast approaching the start of a new year and it would be my earnest wish that the whole pointless, juvenile argument about whether prison works or not is put to rest. Thankyou.

   

Mad or Bad?

The news that Peter Sutcliffe the so-called 'Yorkshire Ripper' is applying to the High Court to have his whole life term rescinded raises many issues, not least that he was found fit to plead in the first place and that the jury did not accept that he was not guilty of murder by virtue of diminished responsibility. I think it was clear to most people that he was in fact suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the murders, but I guess they were such appalling crimes that there would have been great public alarm had there been no trial or conviction. 

In fact Sutcliffe was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and was transferred to Special Hospital under sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act quite soon after conviction. He has remained detained at Broadmoor ever since. If a Mental Health Review Tribunal ever form the view that he has recovered sufficiently, he will be returned to prison. Although there had been an earlier recommendation for a 30 year tariff, this was subsequently made whole life, no doubt taking into account widespread public concern. It will be interesting to see what Lord Justice Judge and his fellow Justices decide, as it would appear that Sutcliffe does have legitimate grounds to have the tariff set aside because he was clearly mentally ill at the time of the offences. 

I suppose some would say it is all a bit academic because one way or the other it is most unlikely that Sutcliffe would ever be regarded as safe to release either through the MHRT or Parole Board route, but I guess in a democracy with an independent judiciary, how the State deals with such notorious cases is important for all our sakes.   

Lifers

Blogging is a strange business and one I'm only just beginning to understand. I notice that I'm not as angry as when I started, thus I suppose proving the therapeutic effect it clearly can have. I seem to have set myself the seemingly impossible task of posting daily and wonder constantly if I'm going to run out of things to say. Today was going to be about employment, or more correctly the lack of it for our clients, but I've just read this powerful piece in the Guardian about lifers and decided instead to run with something I wrote several months ago on the subject. 

I've never had to supervise a 'whole life' tariff prisoner, but this article serves to highlight all too clearly some of the issues. I cannot help noticing that probation does not get a mention and I can only speculate that possibly some or all of the men have decided that they have no need of such a facility and withdrawn their cooperation. I'm also left just as puzzled as ever as to the diagnosis and definition of psychopathic personality disorder, whether it is treatable or not and how some offenders are felt appropriate for the Special Hospital route and others prison. 

Apart from sex offenders, I think it's fair to say that 'lifers' will pose some of the greatest challenges for a probation officer during their career. It used to be that unless you were in a specialist post, you were never likely to be responsible for that many, but the numbers have been increasing dramatically in recent years and they are likely to be with you for many years if you don't move office. This was always felt to be good practice long before NOMS came up with the concept of 'end-to-end offender management'. It represented a degree of continuity when the prisoner was likely to move prison establishment reasonably frequently and as a consequence the Home Probation Officer (now designated Offender Manager) became the defacto expert on the case. I feel this is particularly important as LSP3E reports for the Parole Board can be written with unrivaled authority and knowledge and therefore assist enormously in the key task of assessing risk at all stages of the prisoners progression through their sentence.

When I joined the service, all lifer supervisors were 'paired' with another officer, not only to ensure continuity, but also to give support in what could be some quite gruesome cases. I'm pretty sure this practice has all but disappeared and continuity of supervision is being made ever more difficult by newer recruits to the service wanting to move post more frequently. It cannot be satisfactory for lifer cases to be passed around from officer to officer on a regular basis, but I know it happens, is very unsettling to the prisoner and does nothing to help the Parole Board in their difficult task of assessing risk. In an increasingly 'risk averse' environment, it is getting noticeable that the Parole Board are releasing less and less lifers and a significant problem is developing. HM Inspector of Probation recently referred to this issue in the hope of stimulating a debate. I'm not aware of one as yet.    

I think it is still the practice nationwide to allocate a potential lifer case right from first court appearance, ideally so that the officer can follow the trial and upon conviction and sentence be well prepared to write the Post Life Sentence report. Life sentences are of course the only time when a Pre Sentence Report is not prepared. Somewhat confusingly for the public, there are four types of life sentence :- Mandatory (for murder) Discretionary (for rape, arson etc) Automatic (replaced in 2005 - previously for repeat serious offences) Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP). This latter category has proved somewhat controversial in that when Parliament passed the legislation, it was envisaged that it would only apply to a relatively small group of offenders, not the significant numbers that have been handed down. Again, confusingly for the public, a life sentence very seldom means life, except for the 50 or so cases where 'Whole Life' tariffs have been set.

Since the Home Secretary lost the power to set the tariff, or minimum term felt appropriate for punishment before release can be considered, it is invariably announced by the trial Judge at time of sentence. Generally speaking tariffs have tended to be set higher in recent years, for example most recently in relation to knife-related murder. Release can only be authorised by the Parole Board when they are satisfied that there is no significant risk to the public and there are many prisoners in the system who have gone 5, 10, 20 or 30 years beyond their tariff and for some of them it will indeed turn out to be a life sentence. 

As a result of there being so many lifers in the prison system that have gone way over their tariff and become institutionalised, the Prison Service have been forced to build special geriatric wings, such as that at HMP Norwich. I cannot describe how sad it is to see elderly, infirm men either shuffling around on crutches, or pushing themselves in wheelchairs on the wing with virtually no prospect of release. Sadly, because they are still felt to pose some risk, hostels or other appropriately supervised community facilities are virtually impossible to find, so they continue to languish in prison. Surely there has to be a more suitable and humane way for society to deal with this group?

It should be a sobering thought for us all that the UK has more prisoners serving life sentences than the rest of Europe combined and the release rate has slowed to a trickle due to nervousness at the Parole Board. However, a recent opinion survey on the subject gave cause to feel that the public might be ready to consider afresh the whole sentencing framework and tariff structure relating to life sentences and the government have signalled a possible change in the law relating to mandatory life sentences for murder. Lets just hope that any debate can be conducted sensibly and free of party politics.  

Probation Recommends Custody!

Yes really - I wouldn't have thought it possible, but I saw it in a PSR recently. It said "he would benefit from a structured environment". Happily the Magistrates thought differently and gave him Unpaid Work instead. It absolutely made my heart sink when I read such a pejorative report - I remember thinking 'surely there must be something positive to say about this person - there must be some cause for hope rather than a complete counsel of despair and a literal institutional washing our hands of him?' As far as I'm concerned that's not what probation is about - surely reports should normally err on the side of recommending alternatives to custody, not the other way round FFS! Probation is about trying to make matters better, not worse. How on earth have things got to this point?

The issue of custody and the attitude of probation officers to incarceration is long and somewhat convoluted. No doubt it began with the legacy of our religious roots, developing later into the radicalism of the 70's. Before I was appointed I was told that radical elements within NAPO, the probation officers union, were seriously thinking about making it impossible for members to suggest custody at all and they wanted members withdrawn from prisons. As a result, before my interview, I was given some heavy advice that if I wanted the job I had to say I was prepared to acknowledge that custody was inevitable in certain circumstances. This has always seemed understandable to me and I have been happy to proceed on that basis ever since. Certain serious offences require deprivation of liberty both for public protection and punishment purposes. But recommending custody is a completely different scenario in my book, and normally completely alien to my social work background*. It is almost always hugely damaging to the individual concerned; is by no means helpful to rehabilitation and will do nothing to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. I believe the evidence is conclusive in this regard, whatever politicians may say.

I think there is growing evidence that current probation practice is now suggesting custody by default. We are producing officers that seem to view offending and offenders in only two dimensional terms, that of risk of harm and public protection, rather than looking at the full person, in the round as it were. They seem much more willing to 'up tariff' people and to 'second guess' court decisions, rather than make strongly-argued cases for realistic alternatives to custody. Concordance rates have always been a factor, but in the past the aim was to try and get courts to come down tariff. However, in the current punitive environment, I suspect there is now a trend for officers to go up tariff, especially as it is now possible to load Community Orders with a plethora of conditions. This in turn is leading to higher breach rates and therefore ultimately short terms of imprisonment.

My sojourn in court as a CDO confirmed this suspicion, especially as it fell to me to have to prosecute the breaches. Time after time in reviewing the file it was obvious that the original order had been far too onerous and successful completion was most unlikely. In the breach reports, supervising officers appeared to lose heart quickly, often arguing for revocation and sometimes whole-heartedly suggesting custody, no doubt as a way of getting some respite from a difficult case. Of course the Criminal Justice Act 2003 tied courts hands in largely removing discretion in dealing with breaches by making it mandatory to make the order even more onerous if it was allowed to continue. No wonder prison numbers are steadily climbing if this scenario is widespread. Sad to say, but it must be a reflection of recent training and what new officers feel their managers and society generally expect from its new 'law enforcement' probation service. 

* I have broken this self-imposed rule once, in very specific circumstances. (to be described at a later date).