16. Jun. 2010. – 15:31:04
About a month ago a friend who lives a couple of hundred miles away and whose twenty something daughter was known to the courts in her town asked for any advice he could pass on to her regarding her impending appearance at their local Magistrates` Court on breaching conditions imposed by the court for her to undertake unpaid work in the community. I told him only that she should be honest before the bench.
"Breach Courts" are a regular function undertaken by JPs. With increased pressure from both those with knowledge and those without to reduce the numbers being jailed for short periods and for greater use of out of court settlements it is essential that offenders who fail in the requirements of the probation service are brought back to court to answer the charges and to realise that they could face more severe penalties including imprisonment if admitted or found proved.
Last winter an addict aged around thirty was before us for a regular monthly review of his case. He had been attending a drug rehabilitation centre where he was drug tested twice weekly for two months. Each visit had indicated that he was positive for heroin but the officer present indicated that the mere fact that he had not missed a testing session was a step forward even although he was still using. All we could sensibly do was to make our suggestion to him that the next step if he really wanted to get clean was to have at least one negative next month when we told him to return. So success albeit at a low level is for an addict just to turn up regularly to the testing centre. This is the real state of the drug problem. His history was not unusual........many convictions mainly for theft and varying sentences including custody. Later that day another drug user appeared because he had failed to keep an appointment with probation officers. He was so spaced out the duty solicitor asked for the case to be adjourned because his client was incapable of answering to his name. We did not therefore enquire how he remembered to come or travel to court. The final case that afternoon was of a twenty three year old woman under a curfew with a tag who was not at her designated address when she should have been when Serco telephoned her. They had arrived later, so we were told, to find her in a drunken sleep in her garden some yards from her front door having apparently lost her key. As a result her curfew was increased in length by a considerable amount.
Many such cases result in immediate imprisonment especially for those with history of repeatedly disregarding court orders. It is only after considerable discussion and often with great reluctance that magistrates impose a custodial sentence. Those who would abolish short [usually under six months] sentences should visit a court a few times and realise that for some offenders locking them up to protect society is the only sensible outcome.
Last winter an addict aged around thirty was before us for a regular monthly review of his case. He had been attending a drug rehabilitation centre where he was drug tested twice weekly for two months. Each visit had indicated that he was positive for heroin but the officer present indicated that the mere fact that he had not missed a testing session was a step forward even although he was still using. All we could sensibly do was to make our suggestion to him that the next step if he really wanted to get clean was to have at least one negative next month when we told him to return. So success albeit at a low level is for an addict just to turn up regularly to the testing centre. This is the real state of the drug problem. His history was not unusual........many convictions mainly for theft and varying sentences including custody. Later that day another drug user appeared because he had failed to keep an appointment with probation officers. He was so spaced out the duty solicitor asked for the case to be adjourned because his client was incapable of answering to his name. We did not therefore enquire how he remembered to come or travel to court. The final case that afternoon was of a twenty three year old woman under a curfew with a tag who was not at her designated address when she should have been when Serco telephoned her. They had arrived later, so we were told, to find her in a drunken sleep in her garden some yards from her front door having apparently lost her key. As a result her curfew was increased in length by a considerable amount.
Many such cases result in immediate imprisonment especially for those with history of repeatedly disregarding court orders. It is only after considerable discussion and often with great reluctance that magistrates impose a custodial sentence. Those who would abolish short [usually under six months] sentences should visit a court a few times and realise that for some offenders locking them up to protect society is the only sensible outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment