Public protection, probation practice and related sentencing issues: a Northern Ireland case study

Abstract

This research explores how probation practice and related sentencing issues have developed in Northern Ireland in the punitive policy climate of public protectionism, which has prevailed in criminal justice in the United Kingdom since the 1990s. The underpinning theory drawn upon to analyse these changes is the social construction of risk. The concept of risk and the area of risk assessment/management has had a remarkable impact on probation practice and for those subject to probation supervision. Some of the key issues are related to principles of liberty, detention and human rights generally.

The specific focus of the study explores practice in Northern Ireland with those considered to pose a high risk of harm to others, which in cases of serious violence can result in an individual being categorised as at ‘significant risk of serious harm’ (s-ROSH). This categorisation can have very significant consequences for the individual as it is used to inform decisions on sentencing; in certain circumstances release from custody; and on recall to custody.

Applying a social constructionist meta-theory throughout the research design, this study adopted qualitative methods in a sequential two-phase study design. Q-methodology was utilised in the first phase with probation officers to explore their perspectives on the use of risk of harm assessments and management strategies in their practice. Semi-structured interviews were used in the second phase with Crown Court judges to explore the role of the probation officer and the value of risk of harm assessments in sentencing.

Three composite or typical probation officers’ viewpoints emerged from the Q-data, namely those whose practice orientated towards: risk led practice; goal-orientated and strengths-based practice; or rights-based practice. There was consensus on two key points, namely that the discourse of risk dominated practice and that practitioners saw building a relationship with offenders as fundamental to good practice. Findings from the study with the judges highlighted due process rights which were potentially being impacted upon by probation risk assessment practices. Collaboration with police was a key area that was seen to impact on such rights, and it was questioned if collaboration to the extent it was being practised was necessary.

Reflecting on the core findings, the discussion centred on the limitations of risk orientated practice and the opportunities of both rehabilitative/desistance focused practice and human rights-based practice. Finally, the study presents recommendations on how the findings might be utilised to reimagine probation practice by aligning it much more closely with social work and by using human rights as the anchoring value in practice.

Date of Award	Mar 2023
Original language	English
Supervisor	Una Convery (Supervisor) & Linda Moore (Supervisor)