The Probation Department is facing a number of challenges, particularly the preparation of reports for convicted people and communication delays within the judicial system.
These were highlighted by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Alliston Seale during his address on day two of the Caribbean Association of Probation and Parole Conference at the University of the West Indies’ Sagicor Cave Hill School of Business and Management recently.
He said bureaucratic delays hindered the department’s efficiency and accuracy.
“Sometimes a request for information through formal channels can take an inordinate length of time,” Seale said. He noted that building personal relationships at events like the conference could be a solution to these delays, as informal channels of communication may often expedite the process.
“A phone call to a friend that you met here can be of invaluable assistance,” he said, urging participants to take the opportunity to forge new connections.
The Deputy DPP said another issue which frequently arises in the Probation Department involves preparation of reports on some individuals who have pleaded guilty.
“Officers were encountering a problem with the preparation of reports as it related to the convicted person’s attitude to the offence, where convicted persons gave equivocal utterances when interviewed,” he said.
Seale also said this creates a dilemma for probation officers tasked with preparing reports essential to the sentencing process. He added these reports help the court assess the individual’s remorse, which plays a key role in determining whether the sentence should be more lenient or severe.
“A fundamental part of the sentencing process is the convicted person’s attitude towards the offence, and remorse or the absence thereof will either be considered as an aggravating or mitigating factor likely to affect the ultimate sentence.”
Seale said he has advised his staff that in such situations, officers should not proceed with preparing the report if the convicted person’s statements suggest they may not fully admit to the crime.
“When cases arise whereby the officer is required to prepare a report on a person who has pleaded guilty but during the interview the officer recognises that the interviewee is suggesting that he is not guilty for whatever reason, the officer should complete the interview but not prepare the report,” Seale said.
He stressed that in these cases, officers should communicate directly with the court “so that the issue may be rectified”.
