CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003 – Probation

NEW SENTENCES AND THE NEW

REPORT FRAMEWORK Circular
REFERENCE NO:
PURPOSE
18/2005
To inform probation areas of the new Pre-Sentence Report Framework which
will come into force on 4th April 2005.
ISSUE DATE:
15 March 2005
ACTION
Chief Officers should ensure that the contents of this Circular are
implemented on 4th April 2005. IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
4 April 2005
SUMMARY
This guidance attached to this Circular at Annex A outlines the new PSR EXPIRY DATE:
framework and how it fits with the new sentences. It draws on and is April 2010
consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines and has been
put together in consultation with the Magistrates’ Association and other key TO:
stakeholders. Martin Narey has approved the Circular which has also been Chairs of Probation Boards
endorsed by the National Sentencer NOMS Consultation Group. Chief Officers of Probation
Secretaries of Probation Boards
Attached at Annex B is the new Fast Delivery PSR which replaces the Same
Day Report issued in September last year. CC:
Board Treasurers
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS Regional Managers
PC 85/1999; 53/ 2004
Regional What Works Managers

CONTACTS FOR ENQUIRIES AUTHORISED BY:

Oliver Dean, 020 7217 0762, oliver.dean@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Liz Hill, Head of the Public
Protection and Courts Unit

ATTACHED:
Annex A: Criminal Justice Act
2003 – New Sentences and the
New Report Framework
Annex B: Fast Delivery PSR

National Probation Directorate

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

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

 Annex A

Criminal Justice Act 2003 – New Sentences and the

New Report Framework

1. Introduction

1.1 The introduction of the new sentencing structure in April 2005 represents a
radical overhaul of the current framework. The National Probation Service will need
to provide accurate and effective reports to the Courts on the new sentences. This
document outlines the new Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) framework and how it fits
with the new sentences. It draws on and is consistent with the Sentencing Guidelines
Council (SGC) Guidelines. The SGC Guidelines, NPD National Implementation
Guide for Community Sentence Provisions and NPD practice directions on the new
sentences should be consulted for any detailed information not included here.

1.2 This Guide is split into two sections:

Section A – Report Framework:

2. The New Framework

3. Court Directions
4. No PSR Required and Oral reports
5. Report Format
6. OASys Assessment
7. Sentencing Proposal

Section B – New Sentences:

8. Community Order
9. Deferred Sentence
10. Suspended Sentence Order (Custody Minus)
11. Intermittent Custody
12. Standard Determinate Sentence of Imprisonment of 12 months or more
13. Public Protection Sentences for Dangerous Offenders
Section A - Report Framework
2. The New Framework

2.1 The legal framework for PSRs is set out in Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003. Section 158 defines a PSR as:

‘(1) In this Part “pre-sentence report” means a report which-

(a) with a view to assisting the court in determining the most suitable
method of dealing with a offender, is made or submitted by an
appropriate officer, and
(b) contains information as to such matters, presented in such a manner,
as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State.‘

2.2 The Criminal Justice Act also removes the requirement for PSRs to be written.

2.3 The NPS Business Plan 2005-2006 sets the context for the new PSR
Framework. The Plan encourages Areas to re-prioritise Court work and sets
strengthening the presence of Probation staff in and around the Court as a key
priority for next year. Under the Plan, Chief Officers are asked to ensure that good
liaison arrangements exist with sentencers and Court staff to make certain that any
difficulties in the provision of reports or the wider service to the Court are fully
discussed.

2.4 A significant amount of Probation resources goes into the production of PSRs.
The NPD has, over the last few years, taken steps to reduce this. In 1999 the
Specific Sentence Report (SSR) was introduced. The SSR was supposed to reduce
the burden on Probation Areas as a specific limited enquiry report into an offender’s
suitability for a particular community sentence. SSRs were intended to be used in
many cases in which a full PSR would have been previously. In practice what
happened was that sentencers often requested an SSR in cases in which they would
previously not have requested a report at all. This had the effect of increasing, not
decreasing, the resources that went into producing Court reports. The same must not
happen with the introduction of the new PSR Framework.

2.5 Under the Framework we need to ensure that the Courts have a full picture
(based on OASys) in the cases that need it, including the more dangerous and
prolific offenders, whilst avoiding unnecessarily involved assessment in relatively
straight forward cases. With this in mind the Framework is clear that a PSR should
only be provided when this makes operational sense and where the Court requests
one. The Framework encourages the use of oral reports and Fast Delivery PSRs
(this replaces the Same Day Report, see section 5 below) wherever possible and
appropriate.

2.6 Although the amount and type of PSRs requested is dependant on sentencers
and what they require, we are confident that this Framework, which is in line with
SGC Guidelines and has been drawn up in consultation with sentencers, will help
reduce the burden on report writers.

3. Court Directions

3.1 When the Court intends to impose a Community Order it is expected to give an
initial but specific indication of the seriousness of the offending, (that is, of the current
offence(s) and any relevant previous convictions), of Low, Medium or High. If the
Court considers the case to be so serious that the custody threshold has been
passed it will likewise make this clear. The sentence imposed must be proportionate
to the level of seriousness.

3.2 The Court is also expected to indicate the purpose of sentencing from one or a
combination of the following:

The punishment of offenders

The reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)

The reform and rehabilitation of offenders

The protection of the public

The making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offence1

3.3 Sentencers should provide report writers with a written note identifying the
seriousness and purpose(s) on a standard format report request form2. When making
a proposal for a Community Order these two factors will guide report writers in
determining the nature and combination of requirements that may be appropriate and
the onerousness and intensity of those requirements. The final PSR sentencing
proposal should be consistent with this unless the OASys assessment or screening
or any other factors lead the report writer to suggest reasons for a different view of
seriousness and recommend that a different sentence might be more appropriate.
(See Sections 5 & 6 below).

4. No PSR Required and Oral Reports

No PSR Required

4.1 PSRs need only be produced where the Court requests one. The SGC Guideline
makes clear that there will be times where a PSR is unnecessary, even when
sentencing to a Community Order. The Guideline states that this could be considered
when the offence is in the low range of seriousness and where the sentencer is
minded to impose a single requirement and where the sentence will not require the
involvement of the National Probation Service.3

4.2 Where the sentencer intends only to impose a fine a PSR would be unnecessary.

4.3 In addition, there will be cases where an offender has recently been sentenced,
with a PSR, for a similar offence and the sentencer decides on advice from the
Probation Service that this PSR can be re-used with a suitable addendum which
could be given orally. There may also be an existing OASys assessment to help
inform the advice to the Court. Where an offender is held in custody having been
convicted of murder a post sentence report would be prepared instead of a PSR, as
the offender will be sentenced to a mandatory life sentence.

Oral Reports

1 1.1 - SGC Guideline – Overarching Principles: Seriousness

2 1.1.16 – SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
3 1.1.17 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
4.4 As noted at paragraph 2.2 above, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 removes the
requirement for PSRs to be written. There will be cases, usually in the low
seriousness band, in which the Court only wants a limited amount of information. We
would encourage oral reports to be used in these cases, although the screening
process outlined at paragraph 6.2 should still be followed. If the sentencer only
requires a specific piece of information there is no need to produce a written PSR.

5. Report Format

5.1 Under the new sentencing structure the National Probation Service will have two
PSR templates available for use. These two PSRs will provide the Court with the
information they need when considering sentence. The key difference between the
two reports is the speed with which they are produced and the level and quantity of
information they provide. Reports will be selected on the basis of what the Court
needs for each individual case

Fast Delivery PSR - normally to be completed on the day – this should be our aim
whenever possible – but may be completed in up to 5 days, usually without a full
OASys Assessment.

Standard Delivery PSR - for completion on adjournment based on a full OASys

assessment.

5.2 The Fast Delivery PSR is an amended version of the “Same Day Report”
template which was issued in September last year with PC53/04. It has been
amended to include fields for the Court’s Direction on seriousness and sentencing
purpose and is being issued with this Circular. There has not been sufficient time to
make this template assistive technology compatible. This will be done at the earliest
opportunity.

5.3 The Standard Delivery PSR is the e-OASys template which was deployed
nationally in November last year. Not all Areas are using it yet as report writers in
some Areas still require IT training and the format has still to be finalised – we expect
to have the final version ready in the summer. NPD are assisting Areas in the use of
the template by sharing best practice and through the offer of a 3rd pilot database that
allows a selected number of report writers in an Area to pilot use of the template.
Eventually we will be in a position where all report writers will complete Standard
Delivery PSRs through e-OASys. In the interim, Probation Areas are expected to
implement the e-OASys template where possible. Experience from Areas that are
already using it is that very considerable savings in time are achieved and there are
improvements in the quality both of PSRs and OASys assessments. Even if Areas
are not yet using it, report writers will need to ensure that all Standard Delivery PSRs
have the same section headings and content as the e-OASys template. This should
not result in a large step change as these headings are consistent with existing
National Standards. They are:

Sources of Information

Offence Analysis

Offender Assessment

Assessment of risk of harm to the public and likelihood of re-offending

Conclusion
5.4 As a starting principle, where a custodial sentence is being considered by the
Court, a Standard Delivery PSR including a full OASys assessment would normally
be appropriate. Similarly, in Prolific and other Priority Offenders cases and those
involving mental disorder, child protection concerns, sexual offending, some violent
offending or racial motivation, report writers should always consider completing a
Standard Delivery PSR except where there is a current or very recent OASys which
addresses the relevant issues. There are however many ‘custodial cases’ that are
straight forward, that do not require this level of analysis, and where a Fast Delivery
PSR would be appropriate. And there are, indeed, some custodial cases where
sentencers may deem a PSR unnecessary and not request one (for example where
a judge is clear that the issue is merely one of sentence length and that he/she
needs no Probation Service assistance in deciding this).Taking account of this
guidance, report writers will need to use their professional judgement to gauge which
type of report is suitable for each individual case.

5.5 For cases where the Court has indicated that it is considering passing a
Community Order and requires a PSR, the Court’s direction on seriousness provides
the initial trigger for what type of Pre-Sentence Report should be used. The following
outlines how this framework would operate:

Low Seriousness Cases

Unless an Oral Report will suffice, a Fast Delivery PSR should be used in all cases,
subject to the OGRS score and risk of harm screening (see section 6 below).

Medium Seriousness Cases

A Fast Delivery PSR will be appropriate in many cases and will normally be used in
those in which the OGRS score is low (less than 41) and the risk of harm screening
shows that a full risk analysis is not required.

A Standard Delivery PSR should be used in other cases.

High Seriousness

A Standard Delivery PSR should be used in all cases subject to the OGRS score and
risk of harm screening and unless there is a current or recent OASys assessment
covering the relevant issues, thereby removing the need to do a full new assessment.

6. OASys Assessment

6.1 This Circular provides guidance on OASys use at PSR stage. See National
Standards for OASys use after sentence.

6.2 In all cases in which a PSR is requested, report writers must obtain an
OGRS likelihood of reconviction score and complete the OASys Risk of Harm
screening tool. Where a full OASys Assessment is completed it will look at
likelihood of reconviction, risk of harm and level and type of offending related needs.
The OASys assessment may trigger a requirement for further assessments e.g. Risk
Matrix 2000, SARA etc.

6.3 In all cases a Basic Skills screening must take place using the screening tools
approved by the National Probation Directorate.
6.4 As noted above, when the Court intends to impose a Community Order the report
type initially selected should be commensurate with the Court’s initial indication of
seriousness. However, following the OGRS score and risk of harm screening it may
be that a different report format and therefore level of OASys Assessment would be
more appropriate.

6.5 The following is a guide through this process. Please note that this is best
practice - what it cannot do is anticipate the particulars of an individual case or
the sentencer’s requirements, and professional judgement may, in certain
cases, lead to a different course of action.

6.6 One of the key selling points of OASys is its effectiveness, where a rehabilitative
outcome is sought, in targeting offenders to the right interventions. Poor targeting will
lead to reduced impact from interventions and reduced impact on re-offending. It is
important, when a report writer is considering the way forward in light of the guidance
below, that this is born in mind.

Fast Delivery PSR initially selected

- If OGRS is low (under 41) and the OASys risk of harm screening shows that a
full risk analysis is not required, a Fast Delivery PSR should normally be
completed.

- If OGRS is 41 or over consider requesting an adjournment to complete a

Standard Delivery PSR.

- If the risk of harm screening indicates that a full risk of harm analysis is
required, request an adjournment to complete a Standard Delivery PSR

- If any other factor (such as mental health concerns) comes to the report
writer’s attention which suggests that the case requires a full OASys
assessment consider requesting an adjournment to complete a Standard
Delivery PSR.

Standard Delivery PSR initially selected

- If OGRS is low (under 41) and the OASys risk of harm screening shows that a
full risk analysis is not required, consider recommending to the Court that a
Fast Delivery PSR is completed instead, without a full OASys assessment.

- In all other cases a Standard Delivery PSR, following a full OASys

assessment, should be completed.

7. Sentencing Proposal

7.1 The SGC Guideline states that:

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

4 1.36 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness

And that:

“In many cases a pre-sentence report will be pivotal in helping a sentencer

decide whether to impose a custodial sentence or whether to impose a
community sentence…”5

7.2 This makes clear that sentencers will be looking to the PSR to assist in their
sentencing decisions. When the Court has reached a provisional view that a
Community Order or custodial sentence is the most appropriate disposal, the
sentencer will then look to the PSR. In many cases the PSR sentencing proposal,
following assessment of the offender and offending, will concur with the Court’s
provisional view. The report writer must then make a sentencing proposal, in the
event of it being for a Community Order, drawing on at least one of the twelve model
combinations of requirements (given in the Implementation Guide), consistent with
the Court’s direction of seriousness range and sentencing purpose(s) and the OASys
assessment.

7.3 However, there will be cases where it is appropriate to recommend to the Court
that a fine or discharge is considered rather than a Community Order, or a
Community Order imposed rather than a custodial sentence. The circumstances in
which such a recommendation may be appropriate will vary from case to case but
might include cases where:

- The assessment uncovers mitigating factors which when presented to the

Court lead it to conclude that an offender’s culpability is unusually low – such
as mental illness or disability, or level of maturity, which would lead to a re-
assessment of the level of seriousness.

- Information that the report writer obtains on the offender or their

circumstances suggests that another disposal may be a more appropriate
means of meeting the purpose of sentence that the Court has asked to be
addressed. For example a fine may be a more appropriate punishment than a
Community Order, for an offender whom the Court has assessed as being in
the low seriousness band of the Community Order but who has personal
circumstances such as long working hours combined with a low likelihood of
re-offending.

- An intensive Community Order might be felt to be a more appropriate means

of providing punishment than a custodial sentence because of the effect , for
example, that a prison sentence might have on the offender’s child care
responsibilities, or on their continued employment.

- In cases in which custody appears to be the most likely or inevitable outcome,

an intermittent custody order would represent an alternative means of
safeguarding an offender’s responsibilities in relation to childcare,
employment or education.

- The report writer wishes to bring to the Court’s attention evidence on the
likelihood of re-offending, specifically relevant to the case, that could result
from an inappropriate intervention for an offender assessed as having a low
likelihood of re-offending.

5 1.1.15 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003

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

7.4 When making a sentencing proposal, it is important that report writers bear in
mind that sentencers will take account of all sentences available whether within or
below the threshold passed. If something comes to the report writer’s attention to
indicate that a different type of sentence, from that which the Court was initially
intending to impose, would be more appropriate it should be recommended in the
PSR sentencing proposal. As report writers will be aware, in such circumstances the
final decision will rest with the Court.

7.5 Proposals for Community Orders, in particular those that may impose a range of
restrictive requirements, need to take into account the employment and benefit
situation of the offender. Attention needs to be given to the potential impact on
access to Job Seekers Allowance. Where there is an impact in these areas
requirements that do not interfere with either the offenders full-time education or
employment or their access to full-time education or employment should be
considered. Similarly, in all relevant cases proposals should indicate to the Court the
offender’s ability to pay compensation alongside any other sentence imposed.

7.6 It should also be noted that under Part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000, as amended by Schedule 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
individuals convicted of one of a list of specified sexual and violent offences against a
child or supplying Class A drugs to a child are liable to disqualification from working
with children. (See Probation Circular 17/2005 - Disqualification Orders). Report
writers must advise the Court about consideration of a disqualification order in all
cases where a relevant offence has been committed.
Section B – New Sentences
8. The Community Order

8.1 The new Community Order replaces all existing community sentences for adults.
An offender would be eligible if he has passed the community sentence threshold.
The threshold is crossed if the Court is of the opinion that:

- the offence, or combination of the offence and one or more offences

associated with it, was serious enough to warrant this sentence. 6

8.2 As noted at paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 above it is important that report writers bear
in mind that sentencers will take account of all sentences available whether within or
below the threshold passed. The SGC Guideline states that:

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

8.3 When writing a PSR for these sentences report writers should follow this process:

- Court indication of seriousness range and sentencing purpose(s).

- Report writer uses appropriate report format.

- Report writer undertakes OASys assessment or screening

- If the outcome of the assessment or screening suggests a different report

may be appropriate, the report writer may ask to adjourn for full assessment
or advise the Court that in their opinion a full assessment is not necessary
(See section 5 above)

- The report writer must then make a sentencing proposal drawing on one or
more of the twelve possible Requirements consistent with Court direction of
seriousness and sentencing purpose. (See Section 6 above).

8.4 The SGC guideline gives some examples of the sort of requirements that may be
appropriate depending on the seriousness of the offending. It is important to note that
the guideline states that for low seriousness cases:

“In most cases only one requirement will be appropriate and the length may
be curtailed if additional requirements are necessary.” 8

8.5 NPD is developing standardised PSR information sheets for use when preparing
PSRs recommending a Community Order. These standardised information sheets
(local versions are already in use in many Areas) will outline briefly each of the 12
Community Order Requirements and can be attached as appropriate to a PSR, to

6 1.34 & 1.35 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness

7 1.36 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness
8 1.1.27 - SCG Guideline - New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003
inform sentencers. They are also designed to be helpful to defence lawyers. The
sheets will be made available to all Areas in late March.

9. Deferred Sentence

9.1 NPD are currently developing guidance on this sentence.

10. Suspended Sentence Order (“Custody Minus”)

10.1 There are similarities between Custody Minus and the Community Order. In
both sentences, one or more of the same 12 requirements must be imposed during
the supervision period and the Court can deal with a breach by sending the offender
to custody. The crucial difference is that Custody Minus can be imposed only for an
offence which passes the custody threshold. (Use of “Custody Minus” instead of
“Suspended Sentence Order” is helpful as a reminder of this). The Custody
Threshold is passed when:

“The Court …is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the
offence and one or more of the offences associated with it, was so serious
that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the
offence.” 9

10.2 Custody Minus can only apply if the Court is minded to pass a prison sentence
of less than 12 months. The custodial sentence can be suspended for between 6
months and 2 years.

10.3 The other significant difference is that, in accordance with the SGC Guideline,
because of the very clear deterrent threat involved in Custody Minus, requirements
imposed as part of the sentence should generally be less onerous than those
imposed as part of an equivalent Community Order. This should be borne in mind
when recommending requirements in the PSR.10

10.4 When completing a PSR with a proposal for a Suspended Sentence Order,
report writers should follow the same principles when selecting requirements as they
would for a Community Order.

10.5 A Standard Delivery PSR, derived from a full OASys assessment, would
normally be appropriate. However a Fast Delivery PSR may be used if there is a
current or recent OASys assessment covering the relevant issues.

11. Intermittent Custody Orders

11.1 Intermittent custody (IC) was introduced on a pilot basis in January 2004 and
extended in March 2005 to incorporate a wider catchment area.

11.2 It is a form of Custody Plus in which the custodial period is served intermittently
in order to avoid some of the negative outcomes (loss of employment,
accommodation and family break-up), which can accompany even relatively short
periods of full-time custody.

9 1.31 - SGC Guideline - Overarching Principles: Seriousness

10 2.2.14 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
11.3 During periods in the community, the offender will be under Probation Service
supervision. However, the Court can add additional requirements to the sentence,
such as a curfew or programme requirement.

11.4 IC is a custodial, not a community sentence and the SGC guideline makes this
point clearly:

“Intermittent Custody must be used only for offences that have crossed the
custodial threshold. It is an alternative to immediate full-time custody and so
must meet all the criteria that apply to such a sentence, in particular the need
to pass the custody threshold and the need to ensure that the sentence is for
the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

The prison sentence is not continuous but is interspersed by periods when

the offender is released on temporary licence in the community. A Court may
only impose intermittent custody if the offender consents to serving the
custodial part of the sentence intermittently. The Court must also make sure
that the relevant resources are available in the local area and must consult
the Probation Service to confirm that the offender is an appropriate candidate
for such a sentence.”11

11.5 The custodial part of an IC sentence may be served either at weekends or on

weekdays. Weekend IC is served from Friday evening until Sunday evening. This
period counts as three custody days. Weekend IC will generally be most suitable for
offenders in full-time employment or education or with full-time caring responsibilities.
Weekday custody is likely to be an option for unemployed offenders who wish to
maintain family and community links. It is served either from Monday to Thursday or
Tuesday to Friday each week. This period counts as four custody days. This
arrangement will enable an offender to undertake Probation interviews, Jobcentre
Plus appointments and other community activity.

11.6 As a general rule, IC is not suitable for those convicted of sex offences, serious
offences of violence or domestic burglary. Suitable offenders will normally present a
low risk of serious harm, but some medium risk offenders will also be suitable. It
follows that IC may be appropriate in cases of violence or burglary where the risk
assessment shows that the offender falls into the lower or medium risk category in
terms of risk to the public.

11.7 The level of compliance on the part of offenders sentenced to IC has been
exceptionally high, reflecting a positive response to the sentence. However, as the
SGC Guideline makes clear, IC is a demanding sentence:

“The demands made on the offender by this sentence will generally be

considerably greater than for a custodial sentence to be served immediately
in full. The disruptive effect on family life, the psychological impact of going in
and out of custody and the responsibility on the offender to travel to and from
the custodial establishment on many occasions all make the sentence more
onerous.”12

11.8 Nevertheless, the evidence from the first year of the pilot is that offenders have
welcomed the opportunity offered by IC to maintain family contact and

11 2.3.6 -2.3.7 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
12 2.3.13 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003
responsibilities, and to preserve their jobs. As a result, offenders have generally
coped well with the logistical demands of IC.

11.9. A Standard Delivery PSR, derived from a full OASys assessment, would
normally be appropriate. However a Fast Delivery PSR may be used if there is a
current or recent OASys assessment covering the relevant issues.

12. Standard Determinate Sentence of Imprisonment of 12 months or more

12.1 Where a determinate prison sentence of 12 months or more is imposed the

offender will be released from custody after completing half of the sentence. The
second half of the sentence will be subject to licence supervision in the community.
Every licence will contain six standard conditions. Additional conditions can be set by
the Secretary of State, on advice from the Probation Service, and will address any
continuing needs/risks following the custodial period. The Court will be able to make
recommendations for additional conditions at the sentencing stage.

12.2 When preparing a PSR on an offender who is likely to receive a standard

determinate sentence the report writer should assess the risks and treatment needs
and how these could be addressed during the whole sentence. The Court can use
this information in the decision on sentence length. The Offender Manager
responsible for the offender pre-release is best placed to assess what additional
licence conditions may be appropriate in managing the offender post release,
following any progress made by the offender in custody.

12.3 The SGC Guideline states:

“When passing such a sentence the Court will not know with any certainty to
what extent the offender’s behaviour may have been addressed in custody or
what the offender’s health and other personal circumstances might be on
release so it will be extremely difficult, especially in the case of longer
custodial sentences, for sentencers to make an informed judgment about the
most appropriate licence conditions to be imposed on release.”13

12.4 There will of course be cases where the Court wishes to make specific
recommendations about conditions at sentencing stage, particularly when passing a
relatively short sentence or in cases where the offender has already served most of
the custodial half of his sentence whilst remanded in custody.The PSR should
address these in order that the Court can consider making a recommendation.

12.5 If it is clear that the Court is likely to impose a standard determinate sentence of
12 months or more, a Standard Delivery PSR with a full OASys assessment will
normally be appropriate.

13. Public Protection Sentences for Dangerous Offenders

13.1 Dangerous offenders, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, are those who have
been convicted of a specified offence and who are assessed as presenting a
significant risk of harm through the commission of further such offences.

13.2 A Standard Delivery PSR with a full OASys assessment will be required in every
case in which one of the new Public Protection sentences is likely.

13 2.1.12 - SGC Guideline - New Sentences Criminal Justice Act 2003

13.3 The OASys Risk of Harm assessment should address the “assessment of
dangerousness” that the Court is required to make:

“whether there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm

occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences”.14

The Court will assume that there is such a risk where the offender, at the time the
offence was committed, was aged 18 or over and had been convicted in any part of
the UK of one or more ‘relevant offences’ (specified offences covering England and
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) unless it considers that such a conclusion is
unreasonable.

13.4 In all cases, whether there are relevant pre-convictions or not, where the Court
judges that the offender (aged 18 or over) presents a significant risk, the appropriate
public protection sentence must be imposed. In such cases:

- the Sentence of Imprisonment (Detention) for Public Protection must be

imposed where the offender is convicted of a serious specified offence. Under
the Imprisonment (Detention) for Public Protection sentence the Court sets a
minimum term which will be served before the Parole Board considers
whether it is safe to release the offender. After release the offender remains
on licence for at least 10 years.

- the Extended Sentence for Public Protection must be imposed where the
offender is convicted of a specified offence. It must be for at least 12 months
but cannot be for longer than the maximum sentence for the offence. The
Court must specify a custodial period and an extension period (during which
the offender will remain on licence). From the halfway point of the custodial
period the offender may be released if the Parole Board determines it is safe
to do so, but release will not be automatic until the end of the custodial period.
After release, the offender remains on licence for the unexpired term of the
original sentence (if any) and for an extended period of licence designated by
the Court when imposing sentence.

- the Life Sentence remains where the offender is convicted of an offence that
carries a maximum penalty of life and the Court is of the opinion that the
seriousness of the offences warrants a life sentence.

13.5 The PSR writer must first establish the sentence for which the offender is
eligible i.e. whether the conviction is for a specified, or serious specified offence. The
PSR must provide information, analysis and assessment on:

- the nature and circumstances of the offence;

- any pattern of behaviour of which the offence forms a part;
- the offender.

The Court will take into account this information in its judgement of dangerousness
and consequent sentencing decision.

13.6 Given that the Court’s decision on whether to impose a public protection
sentence, or standard determinate sentence, rests on a judgement of significant risk
of serious harm posed by the offender through further offending, the PSR must make

14 s. 229 Criminal Justice Act 2003

a rigorous assessment of the likelihood of re-offending and the potential seriousness
of its impact. Report writers must assess as usual:

- the seriousness of the offence;

- the pattern of previous behaviour and offending;
- the risk of harm and likelihood of re-offending.

13.7 After considering all the information before it, including the PSR, if the Court
judges that there is not a significant risk, or it is unreasonable to conclude that such a
risk exists, the offender can be sentenced in another way.

13.8 The PSR proposal in terms of the type, or length, should be clearly based on the
assessment of significant risk, and how that risk can be treated, minimised or
controlled.

13.9 As noted at 13.2 above, a Standard Delivery PSR with OASys is required in all
cases where a Public Protection sentence is likely.
Fast Delivery
Pre-Sentence Report
This is a Pre-Sentence Report as defined in
Section 158 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
and has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the National Standard for Pre-
Sentence Reports.
XXX Area
THIS REPORT IS A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT

OFFENDER’S DETAILS:
Name:
(First name then family name)
Date of Birth: Age:
Address:

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

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

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

Court Directions
Seriousness: Low Medium High N/A or not stated

Sentencing Purpose(s):

PSR WRITER’S DETAILS:

Name:
Official Title:
Office Location: Tel No:
Date report completed
and signed:

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 1 of 5 © National Probation Service

1. Sources of Information

Interview
CPS Summary
Previous convictions
Service records
Previous OASys Assessment
Other (please specify) ………………………………………………….

2. Offence Analysis

Please provide a (very) brief outline of the offence(s):

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Why did the offence(s) occur?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Offender accepts responsibility for offending?

Yes No Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Offender recognises the impact and consequences of offence(s) on victim(s)?

Yes No In part Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Offender recognises the impact and consequences of offence(s) on the community?

Yes No In part Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Anti-social/discriminatory attitudes/behaviour associated with offending?

Yes No N/A Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Current offence(s) part of an established pattern of offending?

Yes No Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Current offence(s) indicate escalation in seriousness of offending behaviour?

Yes No Please provide details:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 2 of 5 © National Probation Service

3. Offender Assessment

Accommodation

Is accommodation relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No

Please provide details, where appropriate:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Education, training and employment

Are education, training, employment and/or basic skills

relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No
Please provide details, where appropriate:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Financial management and income

Are finances relevant to the offending behaviour? Yes No

Please provide details, where appropriate:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Drug/Alcohol Misuse:
Is drug/alcohol misuse linked to offending behaviour? Yes No

Is there lack of motivation to tackle drug/alcohol misuse? Yes No

Is drug misuse and obtaining drugs a major activity? Yes No

Is past drug/alcohol misuse history a relevant issue? Yes No

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Mental Health:

Is mental health linked to offending behaviour? Yes No

Does the offender have a history of mental health issues? Yes No

Is a specialist report required? Yes No

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 3 of 5 © National Probation Service

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

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Risk of Harm and Likelihood of Reconviction

The Risk of Harm Screening assessment indicates no reason

for undertaking a full Risk of Harm analysis. Yes No

If there is a medium or high risk, state why an adjournment for a full assessment is NOT required
(e.g. if a recent and relevant OASys assessment is available):
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Likelihood of Re-Conviction is assessed as Low. Yes No

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

5. Sentencing Options and Proposal

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

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 4 of 5 © National Probation Service

Offender’s Attitude to proposed community sentence:

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Signature: …………………………………………. Date: …………………………….

Name: ………………………………………………

Outcome
Sentence of the court: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Comments:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Date Printed: 18-Mar-2005 @ 10:41 Page 5 of 5 © National Probation Service