Pre-sentence reports: Why it’s time to prioritise quality over speed
Revolving Doors believes that better sentencing is key to solving the cycle of crisis and crime. Good quality pre-sentence reports are crucial to this, and so we were dismayed to read the latest report from HM Inspectorate of Probation on the quality of pre-sentence information and advice provided to courts.
Inspectors looked at 490 pre-sentence reports completed in 2022 and 2023. They found that:
- Less than half of all inspected court reports were deemed to be sufficiently analytical and personalised to the individual, supporting the court’s decision making.
- There were notable differences in quality between the types of court report. Oral reports met the overall quality judgement in only four out of 10 cases, short format reports in half of the cases, and standard delivery reports in more than six out of 10 cases.
- Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making.
Some background
Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are prepared by probation officers to aid sentencers. Traditionally they contained sections on the offence, the person’s background and circumstances, a risk assessment and a sentencing proposal. At one time almost all cases were postponed for such a report with a three-week adjournment, allowing for two long interviews with the person the report was about and reports from other organisations, as well as safeguarding checks.
The time the probation officer and person due for sentencing had together meant that they were able to build a rapport, allowing for the report to give detailed analysis on the offence and the person being sentenced. This meant that the report could truly inform the magistrate or judge about which sentence was likely to address someone’s needs, and what their motivation was at this time. It meant detail could be given about previous sentences, as well as what might or might not have made them successful.
As a former probation officer myself, I can say that probation officers took a real pride in these reports, and sentencers were immensely grateful for them. The other benefit was that if the person received a community order and was supervised by the probation officer that wrote the report, there was already a level of trust and good faith between them which helped set up a purposeful relationship which made meaningful work more likely.
Failed reforms and increased time pressures
However, reforms aimed at expediting criminal case resolutions and improving efficiency, including initiatives like Transforming Summary Justice, promoted an increase in pre-sentence reports with quicker turnaround times. This shift led to a decline in the use of standard delivery reports, which typically take up to 15 working days, in favour of fast delivery reports, which take around five days, and oral reports, often completed on the same day or within 24 hours.
The problem with oral and fast delivery reports is that the interview happens over a very short period of time: often within the court building, with maybe just 20 minutes to spare and with the officer under pressure either to get back to the court and deliver the oral report, or to get to another person also waiting for their interview.
Under such circumstances it is not surprising that the officer is not able to build a relationship with the interviewee that allows them to extract the same level of information and so the assessment is less detailed and so, in our view, holds less validity.
The irony of this move towards speed is that it has happened in the context of mass court backlogs, meaning cases take longer than ever before. The rush to sentence is in contrast to the glacial progress of cases through the system.
Impact on the revolving door group
In 2022 we published the Probation Inquiry, exploring the experiences of those in the revolving door on probation, including in relation to court reports. Many people reflected on how rushed their interview felt, and how disappointed they were with the process.
However, others reported it as a transformative experience, where they had been able to disclose things they had never felt comfortable to before, including domestic abuse experiences, and others reported the report resulting to them finally getting them the interventions they needed. We think this demonstrates that report interviews need to be done over a good length of time – with opportunity for both parties to build a rapport.
It is worth noting that the Inspectorate also reported that Court reports for those individuals from a Black, Asian or minority ethnicity background were less likely to be deemed sufficiently analytical and personalised, supporting the court’s decision making. It is our belief that short interviews do not allow for nuanced discussions around cultural and racial issues within the interview, disadvantaging those who already face discrimination within the justice system and society more broadly.
We believe the reduction in longform standard delivery pre-sentence reports has significantly contributed to the decline in the use of community orders by sentencers, with these decreasing by more than half (54%) between 2012 and 2022.
Reports no longer offer strong enough analysis as to why a specific community sentence will be so rehabilitative. This is just one of the reasons why we believe that the decline in standard delivery reports has significantly disadvantaged those in the revolving door group, whose offending is driven by unmet health and social needs.
Presenting for sentencing without the opportunity for previous convictions and former failed sentences to be contextualised seems more likely to end in a custodial sentence in our already calamitously overcrowded prisons, rather than with the targeted, rehabilitative non-custodial support our group so desperately need.
Return to more thorough PSRs to break the cycle
The findings of the Inspectorate’s report underscore the critical need for high-quality, detailed pre-sentence reports to support effective sentencing.
The shift towards faster, less comprehensive reports has unfortunately compromised the ability of sentencers to make fully informed decisions, particularly for those with complex needs, such as individuals struggling with substance use or mental health issues.
This trend not only undermines the goal of rehabilitation but also disproportionately impacts those who are already vulnerable, perpetuating the cycle of crisis and crime.
To break this cycle, it is imperative that we advocate for a return to thorough, personalised pre sentence reports that truly inform sentencing decisions and promote more equitable outcomes for all.
