Advance Disclosure Information

Prior to the interview I familiarised myself with Advance Disclosure Information and pre-convictions. I was able to identify the fact that his past offending history did not include this offence, though in analysing his pre-convictions it was evident that he had been before the courts for far more serious offences burglary, driving offences and the last for which he is presently on licence, being supply of class 'A' drugs. However this did not lead me to assess him as high risk of harm, this was confirmed by completing an E-OASys risk of harm assessment tool, which rated him low risk.

The static risk predictor for his risk of re-offending was low, which complemented my professional judgement as I had assessed him low also as a result of his past offending history and age at first conviction, this was confirmed by an OGRS score in the thirties, In considering a recommendation I believed a community sentence would best serve both justice and the public. A point of reference was Nigel Stones book " A Companion Guide to Sentencing" [2000], which indicated a consideration for the appropriateness for a community sentence.

However I also had to consider the fact that the Court had indicated all sentencing options were open including custody. In view of my professional assessment and the OASys assessment I began to identify appropriate community sentences which would serve both as punishment and as a way of providing reparation for this crime commensurate to its seriousness. I amassed all available information that would influence my decision and discussed the situation with his supervising officer and made myself aware of past PSR's.

On familiarising myself with this information I identified the fact that he had complied with all past supervisions and in interview appeared motivated to comply, however he had outstanding fines which he stated he was unable to pay. As such I believed by proposing a Community Punishment Order as a sentence for his crime, I would not be setting him up to fail. Whilst I assessed him as being eligible for a structured community sentence, I did not however believe a custodial sentence would serve any purpose either as punishment for this crime or as reparation to the victim.

As I was proposing a community sentence, I would have to persuade the Court it was commensurate to his crime and that alcohol had acted as a disinhibitor. In interview I made the offender fully aware that if he did not comply he would face being returned to Court and may face further charges. Introduction The introduction identifies the efforts I made in obtaining and gathering facts, opinions and evidence in connection with this PSR. Within the model of case management I contacted and shared information with the internal agency involved in my proposal, so should it be acted on it would play a pivotal role in managing the case.

Whilst the introduction begins the report the information and sources used were fully identified at the end of preparing the report prior to completion. Offence Analysis Prior to discussing the circumstances of the offence I explained my role as unbiased author, so as to establish my position in relation to writing the PSR. Trotter [1999] identifies role clarification as a key skill in working with offenders. He believes it to be an ongoing process starting at the beginning of working with involuntary clients and continuing throughout the intervention process.

In terms of case management, I identified my position as one of both social control and assistance provider, i. e. it is my responsibility to provide an unbiased report to the court and in doing so also identify and assess the needs of the offender, which may inform the proposal in future interventions. In doing this I used interpersonal skills, which enabled me to ask questions, whilst remaining aware of National Standards [2000 revised] such as requirements for this section in terms of content i. e.

Key features of the offence, level of pre-meditation, awareness of consequences, attitude to the offence and the victim, throughout the process I was aware the questions I asked neither led or presumed a conclusion. Essential skills in doing this were Motivational Interviewing, anti- oppressive and anti-discriminatory practice. Miller and Rollnick [1991] have identified what they see as five core principles when motivationally interviewing these are to; express empathy, develop discrepancy, avoid argumentation, role with resistance and support self-efficacy.

The interview was conducted in a calm but professional manner which aloud Miller and Rollnicks principles to flourish. Asking Socratic questions I gave the offender the opportunity to provide his version of the offence. I listened reflectively summarising his account back to him ensuring a correct account of his perspective was recorded. I encouraged him to contribute to the report by using this approach, encouraging the offender to develop discrepancy presenting his analysis as to why he offended and to give his argument for change.

By motivating him to express self-efficient statements, I obtained a good insight into his level of motivation. The interview offered him an opportunity to provide his version events at the same time it aloud me to assimilate and make sense of the information objectively and in an unbiased manner. I conducted the interview from an anti-discriminatory, anti-oppressive perspective, explaining the importance of working jointly to compile the report, involving him fully in the assessment process, why I had asked particular questions and how the answers would be used.

Dalrimple & Burke [1995] view this as a basic anti-oppressive framework for assessment incorporating the differing perspectives of all involved in the process. As such his perspective of the offence plus my analysis of his attitude and actions were included. Offender Assessment This section identifies important factors relating to the offenders background, which may be seen as contributing to his offending, also providing positive information to the court. Criminological theory has informed and influenced this section of the report identifying sociological influences in the offence.

Southerland's [1939] theory of differential association, puts forward the argument that criminal behaviour is learnt via exposure to criminal norms, peer pressure and group membership. This is useful in analysing this offenders past history, he left school at the age of 16 with 8 GCSE's has done some training via government initiatives. But has preferred to spend his time with negative peers, eventually becoming a drug dealer himself, he is able to identify peer pressure as a major factor in his past offending.

Another relevant theory is that of rational choice, used extensively in analysing burglaries [Mc Guire 2000] it argues a degree of calculation is applied prior to an offence by way of a costs/benefits analysis. Whilst this offence appears opportunistic it shows a degree of prior calculation as he ran off close too where he wanted to get too, but failed realise he would be caught regardless as the taxi driver had his brother's address from the first stop in the journey.

Adhering to National Standards [2000 revised] I referenced his level of literacy, numeracy and employment status, I also included information on his drinking as a result of peer influences. These are important inclusions from the perspective of case management as they influence prospective case managers to develop specific programmes of intervention aimed at addressing individual need. I remained focused on motivational factors, as such was able to analyse issues related to his accommodation needs and was also able to identify changes in attitude, which his case manager could work with.