Proceso para la toma de Conciencia Ambiental

One case in our sample (DC03), was dealt with by way of a deferred sentence, an approach also known as adjourned supervision. As noted in the previous chapter one of the main benefits of adjourned supervision according to the probation officers we interviewed was that it provided an opportunity to capitalise on a client’s high level of motivation to avoid a custodial sanction. Probation officers also observed that one of the main differences between adjourned supervision and probation orders was the extent of involvement of the court in relation to decisions around the supervision of client.

However, one perplexing question that has arisen around the use of deferred sentences is why judges use this instead of using the statutory based Probation Order. In this study, we discussed adjourned supervision with some of the judges we interviewed. One of the judges we interviewed had dealt with a case in our sample by way of adjourned supervision and so we were able to ask why he had adopted

95 that approach rather than a Probation Order. He explained that the defendant in this case had been charged with Section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1977 which involved the possession of drugs for sale or supply and that although it was a relatively serious offence, the amount of drugs involved was small, and he saw a ‘glimmer of light’ in relation to the client. The judge was clearly motivated by rehabilitation in this case:

It was a foolish enterprise, if he can be redirected by use of the services, that the Probation Service may be, make avail of, then it is all to the good in my view, the young man may cease using drugs, may find direction in life, may get employment and may have a perfectly normal successful life, with employment, finding a partner in life, or not as the case may be, just become a part of the social fabric that is necessary. [J01]

He also noted that the defendant in question was supported by his family in court and that his lawyers had argued strongly against their client receiving a conviction. After seven months the case was ultimately struck out and the defendant was left with no conviction. When asked why he did not combine a dismissal under Section 1(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 with a Probation Report to achieve the same purpose the judge explained that:

The problem with section 1.1 of, of the Probation Act is that some people regard that as a conviction, and it is recorded as a conviction, and then if you have a conviction and then beside that the Misuse of Drugs Act, that’s, you know, a large red X beside the name of that person, and I don't think that, that…a… section 1.1 decision should be capable of being used to adversely affect somebody in later life and for many, many years. [J01]

The fact that a Section 1(1) dismissal under the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 would effectively leave a record of the offence against the defendant’s name if the defendant ever appeared before another criminal court is a common concern among judges and was noted in a previous study (Maguire 2008). Anecdotal evidence suggests that it has become common practice in the District Court for judges to use their discretion under Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of the District Court 1997 to strike out the case leaving no record of the offence lodged against the name of the defendant.

96 Another judge explained why he thought it sometimes made more sense from a judicial perspective to choose adjourned supervision rather than a Probation Order:

I think also you want to put the pressure on the Probation Service in a more immediate way to engage… where I allow the Probation Service to deal with a person over a six month period, it is when there has been a plea for leniency on the basis that the person has already started to engage, and perhaps has an in-house treatment program for drug addiction…for an eight week period during which time he won’t be under the control of that particular probation officer, but will come back with some kind of good housekeeping seal of approval if you like. So you have, you want to allow the thing to germinate…but I often feel that…the Probation Order once given indicates to all and sundry, including the probation officer, or the services themselves, that this is a low-grade, low risk individual, who perhaps gets put [to the] back of the queue. (J03)

The views expressed above suggest that adjourned supervision achieves a more immediate impact in terms of allowing a person who has already started to engage the time and space to continue and to allow that approach to ‘germinate’. There is also the perception amongst some judges that when someone is given a Probation Order they are considered low risk and thus not prioritised in terms of resources.