« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Summary Justice Review Committee: REPORT TO MINISTERS
Chapter 29: SOCIAL ENQUIRY REPORTS
29.1 The main purpose of a Social Enquiry Report (SER) is to provide information to the court about the offender and their background circumstances, prior to sentencing. The report helps the court decide how to deal with the case. Reports can be requested by the court for any case, but must be requested before imposing a custodial sentence, either for the first time or if the offender is under 21 years of age. A court must also obtain an SER before making a community service or probation order. Reports should analyse offending, may contain assessments of the re-offending potential of the accused (and the harm which might be caused to others) in order that social work interventions can be appropriately planned and targeted. Assessments are supported by a structured risk assessment and will contain an intervention plan, where recommendations are made for social work disposals.
29.2 As noted above there are a number of circumstances in which the court is obliged to defer sentence in order to obtain a social enquiry report. Section 203(1) of the 1995 Act provides that:
"Where a person specified in section 27(1)(b)(i) to (vi) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 commits an offence, the court shall not dispose of the case without obtaining from the local authority in whose area the person resides a report as to --
(a) the circumstances of the offence; and
(b) the character of the offender, including his behaviour while under the supervision, or as the case may be subject to the order, so specified in relation to him."
29.3 The 1968 Act lists those categories of individual where a report must be obtained, including:
- persons who, following on release, are required to be under supervision under any enactment or by the terms of an order or licence;
- persons subject to a community service order or probation order;
- persons who are subject to supervised attendance order;
- persons who are subject to a supervision and treatment order; and
- persons aged 16 and 17 years who are subject to a supervision requirement imposed in relation to the commission of any offence.
29.4 These provisions give rise to a number of instances in which the court is obliged to defer sentence for an SER to be conducted by officers of the relevant local authority. Whilst in a number of cases the preparation of such a report is quite appropriate (and provides the court with information necessary to determine the most appropriate disposal), throughout the review, and in discussion with organisations such as the Association of Directors of Social Work (ADSW) the Committee questioned whether there was always a need for a new SER to be produced in the circumstances currently required by legislation. For some minor matters obtaining an SER serves little purpose. If an offender who is subject to a community service order is convicted in the district court following a failed fiscal fine offer the only likely sentence may be a very modest fine. It is a waste of resources to require the preparation of an SER in such circumstances. If the court is satisfied that no useful purpose is likely to be served by obtaining one, we consider that it should not be required to defer sentence for that purpose. Such deferments are usually accompanied by an order that the offender appears in person, leading to possible loss of wages for him or her. In a number of cases "new" reports were felt to be unnecessary in view of the fact that the accused had been in court very recently and an SER had been produced for a previous appearance. In those instances the circumstances of the accused had often changed very little (if at all) since the last SER had been commissioned. The necessity of deferring such cases for SERs contributes further to delays in the system. In a number of cases judges and social workers felt they were just "going through the motions" and that a new report was not necessary. The Committee therefore recommends the removal of the compulsion to obtain a new SER prior to sentence in the circumstances currently prescribed, where an existing report on the offender has been prepared within the last 3 months. The option of obtaining a new report in these instances should, however, be retained - so that an application can be made to the sheriff for a new report where there have been significant changes in the circumstances of the accused.
29.5 The Committee considered the operation of "stand down" SERs - which take place in some English courts. A duty social worker would be on hand in the court in order to conduct an immediate interview with the offender and report back to the court - avoiding lengthy deferrals for sentence. Such reports can identify very quickly cases in which a full SER would be obtained and can indicate other assessments which should be made of the offender. It was noted that such arrangements operated most effectively when the social worker on hand had some knowledge of the offender's background or was able to access such information quickly. Such a system would not be successful in all cases - for example when a case was heard in an area other than the offender's normal area of residence, the local social work department would not have access to previous SERs or information relating to the accused. Basing a social worker in a court is common and may be a more effective use of resources in many courts. Such a social worker can and sometimes does give an oral report in cases. Such a report would be particularly useful where it appears to be unnecessary in circumstances such as those referred to above to obtain an SER in the usual way. The Committee noted the role played by stand-down reports in England and Wales and recognised that there may be merit in making more use of "stand down" reports in Scottish courts where a significant need for SERs existed.
29.6 The Committee noted that social workers would be better placed to provide accurate and meaningful SERs if they were provided with more information relating to the accused and the alleged offences he or she faced. In some cases at present the "account" the social worker hears from the offender at interview does not and could not match the charges faced by the individual in question. The social worker then needs to rely on a combination of that account of events plus his or her own experience to produce an SER that the court will find of benefit in determining the most appropriate disposal. The provision of a summary of the evidence to the social worker in advance of his or her interview with the accused would be of value - a short summary of the evidence (similar to that which would be provided to the accused with the charge) could be provided, along with a copy of the complaint and details of previous convictions (which social workers currently receive). The Committee recommends that these steps are taken - as they would allow social workers to produce their report from a more informed standpoint.
29.7 The Committee noted that, in common with other documents essential to the process of a case, the facility to send and authenticate SERs electronically, through ISCJIS, would improve efficiency.
We recommend the removal of the compulsion upon the court to obtain a new Social Enquiry Report (SER) prior to sentence in the circumstances currently prescribed, where a report which has been produced in the last 3 months is available. The option of obtaining a new report in these circumstances should be retained.
We recommend that social workers be provided with a short summary of the evidence against an accused (similar to that which would be provided to the accused with the complaint) along with a copy of the complaint and details of the accused's previous convictions to assist in the production of accurate SERs.
We recommend that it should not be necessary for a court to obtain a social enquiry report if the court is satisfied that, having regard to the sentence likely to be imposed by it, the obtaining of such a report would serve no useful purpose.
« Previous | Contents | Next »