A Chathaoirligh,
I am very pleased to be here today to present this Bill to the House. The purpose of the Bill is to encourage the greater use of community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment. This Bill reflects the commitment set out in the national recovery plan to extend the use of community service orders by introducing a requirement on judges when considering the imposition of a sentence of twelve months or less, to firstly consider the alternative sanction of community service. Imprisonment – the deprivation of a person’s liberty – is the most serious sanction available to the State in punishing a person convicted of a criminal offence. It is rightly regarded as a sentence of last resort.
In the area of penal policy, non-custodial or alternative sanctions are an essential part of the sentencing options available to a court when imposing a sanction on a convicted offender. Many minor offences, while carrying potential sentences of imprisonment, may not warrant a sentence of custody. This is where non-custodial sentencing options form an essential part of the judicial discretion in sentencing.
The most common non-custodial sanction used by the courts is the imposition of a fine. Other alternative sanctions include suspended sentences, application of the Probation of Offenders Act, the imposition of a restriction on movement order or the imposition of a community service order, on which we focus today.
Before addressing the Bill before the House, I would first like to briefly outline the existing framework for community service. As an alternative sanction to imprisonment, community service was first introduced under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983, the provisions of which were first introduced in a Bill which I published in 1982. Under that Act, a court may make a community service order in respect of an offender who is over the age of 16 years and who has been convicted of a criminal offence for which a sentence of imprisonment would be appropriate. A community service order requires an offender to perform unpaid work for between 40 and 240 hours.
There are a number of conditions which must be met before the making of an order. A court may not apply a community service order unless satisfied, on the basis of an assessment report of a probation officer, that the offender is a suitable person for the purpose of such an order, that appropriate work is available and that the offender has consented to the order. Increasing the use of the community service scheme was one of the main recommendations of the Value for Money and Policy Review of the Community Service Scheme which was published in October 2009.
As noted by the Review, community service as an alternative sanction to custody achieves several goals benefiting the State, the community and the individual offender.
Community service delivers significant financial savings as it is a considerably cheaper sanction than imprisonment. An analysis of the costs involved indicate that the comparative costs of a community service order is unlikely to exceed 34% of the alternative cost of imprisonment and may be estimated to be as low as 11-12%.
Community service benefits the offender by diverting them from prison allowing them to maintain ties with family, friends and community, including continuing in education or employment, as the case may be. Community service also offers reparation to the community which benefits from the unpaid work of those serving these orders.
However, despite such benefits, the Value for Money and Policy Review identified a significant shortfall in the capacity utilisation of them community service scheme. Nationwide, capacity utilisation was estimated at 33%, although, as I will shortly outline, there has been an increase in the number of community service orders, particularly in the Dublin area, over the last year.
That low capacity utilisation identified by the Value for Money Review was a reflection of the fact that a very small number of courts were responsible for the majority of orders made. In 2006, only 29 courts, of 108 court venues, accounted for 80% of the total number of community service orders and just 12 courts accounted for 60% of the orders for that year. Notwithstanding the recent increase in the use of community service, it is a fact that a relatively small number of courts continue to be responsible for the majority of orders made.
Today, the Probation Service published its 2010 Annual Report following its submission to Government. The report highlights the prioritisation given to community service in 2010, in particular the development of a new model of community service which was piloted in the Dublin area prior to extending it nationwide to all appropriate courts.
The model, based around a dedicated community service team with enhanced administrative support, was successful in producing a number of major benefits including more timely and efficient assessments, prompt starting of Court Orders, improved attendance at worksites and an increased number of Orders made.
The Annual Report identifies that 8 out of 10 community service orders were commenced within 10 days of induction, that 7 out of 10 were completed within 6 months and that the greater focus in the Dublin pilot area saw an increase in community service orders of 34%. Given the purpose of the Bill before us today – to encourage greater use of community service orders – it is extremely encouraging to know that the Probation Service have in place the necessary structures and procedures which will support and manage the growth in usage. I have mentioned the beneficiaries of community service – be it the offender or the exchequer. The positive impacts extend into our communities and I would like to outline some of those projects undertaken throughout the country.
In 2009, the Community Service Graffiti Removal Project was piloted in south Dublin. Using specialised equipment, it was successful in removing unsightly graffiti in local communities. It delivered significant savings for communities and councils together with providing a positive and visible benefit for communities.
For the offenders, a sense of job satisfaction was experienced, particularly given the appreciation shown by the communities for the work done. The positive impact on offenders manifested in consistent attendance, good performance and reductions in warnings. In 2010, the project was extended to the Dublin City Council area, further rolled out to Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Council area and expanded in Cork. Community service has also proved useful in reacting to events in local areas. In late 2009, following significant flooding in Athlone and Ballinalsoe, community service assisted in the local response with flood relief and clean up work.
A significant number of community service projects involve environmental improvement programmes such as the graffiti removal, which I have mentioned, as well as picking up litter, gardening and other environmental improvements. The positive social and community impacts of these projects mean the Probation Service actively pursue environmental work projects. As well as working with local authorities, partnerships are formed with tidy towns groups and others. Since 2007, the Probation Service have worked in association with Monaghan Tidy Towns to utilise persons on community service.
As a resource for local communities, the importance of community service should not be underestimated and every effort to extend its use should be encouraged. I have mentioned the lead role taken by the Probation Service in seeking to increase the number of persons that could potentially be placed on community service.
However, there continues to be scope for greater use of community service. As I stated at the outset, imprisonment is – and should be – a sentence of last resort. This Bill is focused on those sentences of up to 12 months recognising that there has been a significant increase in sentences of up to this period. In 2009, 9,216 persons were committed to sentences of up to one year (representing 85% of committals that year). As these sentences indicate, the offences involved are generally of a minor nature (40% were for road traffic offences) and I believe that these offenders should be considered for community service.
To that end, the primary purpose of this Bill is to introduce a requirement on the courts to consider imposing a community service order as an alternative to custody in certain circumstances.
The proposed amendment provides that a court before which a person is convicted and in circumstances where a sentence of up to twelve months would be appropriate, shall consider, as an alternative to that sentence, the imposition of a community service order. This requirement to consider imposing a community service order in such cases will be the primary new feature of the community service process.
However, the obligation introduced by this amendment is simply an obligation to consider making a community service order. Whether or not the court proceeds to make an order is entirely a matter for the court. To impose any further obligation on the court would be an inappropriate interference with the judicial function. The decision to impose a community service order will also remain dependent on the satisfaction of the conditions for the imposition of such an order as set out in the 1983 Act and to which I earlier referred. I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 amends the definitions section of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. The main change in this section is the amended definition of "relevant officer".
Under the 1983 Act, a relevant officer is defined as "a probation and welfare officer discharging functions under this Act". This definition has been amended to read "a person who has been assigned by the Director of the Probation Service to discharge functions under this Act and includes a probation officer discharging functions under this Act".
In effect, under the new definition, a relevant officer may be a probation officer but may also, for instance, be a community service supervisor or a member of the administrative staff of the Probation Service. The amended definition recognises that a number of functions of a relevant officer under the 1983 Act need not necessarily be carried out by a probation officer. This amendment to the definition of ‘relevant officer’ will facilitate a reduction in any unnecessary administrative burden on probation officers. I have already outlined the main provision of section 3 of the Bill, that is, to create an obligation on judges, in sentencing for an offence where imprisonment of up to twelve months may be appropriate, to consider imposing a community service order in place of imprisonment.
This section introduces further new provisions into the 1983 Act, namely, placing a requirement on a court, that considers a particular offender to be a person in respect of whom it may be appropriate to make a community service order, to request an assessment report from the Probation Service.
This assessment report should be furnished to the court within 28 days. A provision to extend this period is included where there is good reason for doing so and where it is in the interests of justice. These provisions essentially reflect existing practice.
Section 3(c) of the Bill proposes a new section 2A to be inserted into the 1983 Act. This new provision will confirm that the requirement under the Bill to consider community service does not affect the power to impose any other orders available to a court which provide for an alternative to sentence of imprisonment. In effect, the provisions of the Act will not preclude the imposition of any alternative sanction to imprisonment such as suspended sentence, application of the Probation Act or restriction on movement order.
Section 4 of the Bill essentially restates the existing section 4(1) of the 1983 Act with reference to the assessment report under the new section 3 (1B) inserted by this Bill. I have already referred to the conditions for the making of a community service order which are that the court is satisfied that the offender is a suitable person to perform work under an order and arrangements to perform such work can be made. In reaching such a determination, the court will consider the offender’s circumstances; the assessment report prepared by a probation officer, and, if necessary, will hear evidence from such an officer. In addition, and importantly, the offender must consent to the making of an order.
Section 5 of the Bill restates section 6 of the 1983 Act but includes specific reference to the circuit court. While community service orders may be imposed by any court (excluding the Special Criminal Court), they have, up to recently, normally been imposed in proceedings before the District Court. However, this form of sanction is increasingly being used by the Circuit Court and the amendments to the 1983 Act proposed by this Bill will further encourage the use of these orders by the Circuit Court. A further amendment to section 6 will require a certified copy of the order to be sent to the Director of the Probation Service who shall ensure a copy of the order is given to the offender. Under the existing provision, this task was assigned to a relevant officer who was a probation officer.
However, it is considered administratively expedient to centralise this function allowing more accurate control of the information on orders that have been made as well as for the efficient onward transmission of those orders to offenders. Section 6 of the Bill amends section 7 of the 1983 Act. These are minor amendments providing that the Director of the Probation Service will direct an offender to report to a specified relevant officer.
This section of the Bill also amends the provision in section 7 of the 1983 Act which allows for prosecutions for failure to comply with a community service order to be taken by a relevant officer. The words ‘relevant officer’ has been replaced by ‘probation officer’. It is appropriate that such prosecutions would only be taken by a probation officer. Given that this Bill amends the definition of ‘relevant officer’ to include persons other than probation officers, this amendment provides the necessary clarification. Section 7 amends section 8 of the 1983 Act. It clarifies that offenders remanded under that section are remanded to a sitting of the District Court or other court, as the case may be.
Section 8 of the Bill amends section 9 of the 1983 Act which provides for the extension of time for the performance of work under an order. The Act provides that the hours of work under a community service order shall be completed within 12 months of the date of the order. However, this period may be extended under section 9 of the Act. The existing provision requires such applications to be made to the District Court. It is proposed to amend this by substituting the word "court" for "District Court". Where an order is made by the Circuit Court, it is appropriate that that court would amend the order where necessary. This section makes the required provision. Section 9 amends section 10 of the 1983 Act which allows for applications to the court for a change of residence of an offender. This follows on foot of the requirement in the Act that a community service order would state the district of residence or, on foot of this Bill, the circuit of residence of an offender. Section 10 of the Act is being amended to include references to the Circuit Court in addition to the District Court. Section 10 amends section 11 of the 1983 Act which provides for revocation of orders. Again this section has been amended to make specific reference to the Circuit Court. In addition, applications for the revocation of an order could, under the 1983 Act, be made by the offender or by a relevant officer. The reference to ‘relevant officer’ has now been amended to read ‘probation officer’. As with the amendment introduced by section 6 of this Bill, applications for revocations are properly the function of a probation officer. Given the extended definition of ‘relevant officer’ introduced by this Bill, the amendment provides the necessary clarification. Section 11 of the Bill amends section 12 of the 1983 Act relating to the jurisdiction of the courts. As I have outlined, a number of amendments introduced by this Bill have been done so to include specific reference to the Circuit Court. This section ensures the jurisdiction provisions of the 1983 Act apply equally to the Circuit Court as they do the District Court whether dealing with an application for extension of time for completion of community service, a change of residence by the offender or revocation of an order. Section 12 again amends the 1983 Act so that the power to summon or, if necessary, order the arrest of an offender subject to a community service order is not limited to the District Court.
Section 13 of the Bill clarifies that references in existing enactments to probation and welfare will be construed as references to probation. This provision reflects the Government Decision of 19 May 2006 which included the re-branding of the Probation and Welfare Service as the Probation Service. Given that the amendments introduced in this Bill refer to Probation Service, Director of Probation Service and probation officer, it is appropriate to take this opportunity to clarify references in existing legislation. This provision does that.
Before concluding, I would like to briefly address the impact of this Bill on prison capacity. The motivation to deliver the proposals contained in this Bill is not to deliver prison spaces, although in the short term, it may well provide some benefit in this regard.
It is true that the number of committals for sentences of less than twelve months has increased in recent years. In 2009, 85% of the total number of sentenced persons committed to prison that year received sentences of up to 12 months. However, according to monthly statistics, the proportion of people in custody on a daily basis that are serving short sentences is around 15%. The short nature of these sentences results in quick turn around of such prisoners with little or no accumulation effect on prisoner numbers for the following year.
Increasing community service will not significantly impact available prison space. This Bill is about diverting those persons receiving these relatively short sentences away from prison and making them subject to a sanction which benefits them and their communities. Community service as an alternative sanction to imprisonment is not new. Today, we are merely seeking to increase the use that is made of this sentencing option.
This Bill is a further step in diverting persons from prison where it is appropriate to do so. The Fines Act 2010 provided a balanced and more humane approach to the determination and collection of fines. That Act also provides for alternatives to imprisonment, including community service, in the event of a failure to recover a fine or its value in seized goods.
This Bill delivers a key commitment of the Government programme and is a step in our delivering a sentencing system that provides a safer society at a lower cost to the taxpayer. I again emphasise that the positive impact of community service is far-reaching – delivering at a national, community and individual level. Financial benefits will accrue to the exchequer from the significantly lower costs associated with community service as compared to imprisonment.
The community obtains a measure of reparation and the benefit from unpaid work. Community service allows offenders to remain in work or education, to maintain links with family and community and to deliver reparation for the offence.
There are persons sentenced to short terms of imprisonment that could, and should, be subject to a community service order. This Bill seeks to focus attention on and encourage greater use of this non-custodial sentencing option.
I commend this Bill to the House.