Content

Case summary
Inspector’s comments

Back to keeping people safe – low risk Next chapter: Planning to keep people safe

---

Assessment should focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe. Practitioners should:

Back to top

Case summary

Christopher is 22 years of age and was given a 15-month custodial sentence for possession of cannabis and possession of an offensive weapon. He had been using cannabis since his late teens and admitted to selling the drug to fund his own habit. Christopher was found with the cannabis and a hammer in his glove box during a stop and search operation close to his home. He explained that he carried the hammer in his glove box for his own personal protection.

Intelligence from the police corroborated his explanation that he had not been involved in selling cannabis for long and, aside from a caution for shop theft when he was 17, Christopher had no other previous convictions. He cooperated with the police from the outset and pleaded guilty to the offences at the earliest opportunity. During interview for the pre-sentence report, Christopher was remorseful and expressed regret for the shame and upset caused to his family as a result of his offending. He explained that he had not used cannabis since he was arrested for the offence and had been attending sessions with the local drug service to help him abstain from the drug in future.

Christopher completed his education with 10 GCSEs and 3 A levels. He was single and resided with his parents prior to his sentence. At the time of the offence he was also working full-time as a supervisor in a local supermarket but had ambitions to go to university to study law. He was deeply worried about the impact that his offending might have on his future.

At the pre-sentence report stage, Christopher was assessed as posing a low risk of causing serious harm. Appropriately, he was deemed eligible for early release on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) post-sentence and planned to live with his parents again on release. The responsible officer made contact with Christopher while he was in custody and spoke to him over the phone when the HDC assessment was requested by the prison. A visit to his parents’ address was also carried out and, in preparation for release, the responsible officer liaised with Through the Gate staff to verify what work had been completed while in custody. Christopher had been well behaved in the prison, had a job on the wing and had continued to engage with some low-level substance misuse interventions. In addition, the responsible officer liaised with the local gang unit in the police to check whether there was any intelligence suggesting that Christopher was affiliated to any local organised crime groups, given the nature of the index offences. Information from the police confirmed that Christopher was not known to them as a gang member.

Following release, the responsible officer updated Christopher’s risk assessment. Where the pre-sentence report author had omitted to complete a full OASys risk of harm analysis, this decision was reversed at the initial sentence plan stage. The responsible officer wanted to take full account of the conviction for possession of the offensive weapon and, although they agreed with the assessment of low risk of serious harm, the full analysis now provided the detail and circumstances about the offences and Christopher’s attitude towards them. It also highlighted the dynamic risk factors (cannabis use, involvement with peers and financial mismanagement) that needed to be monitored in order to ensure that the supervision process could be responsive, should Christopher’s risk begin to escalate.

Back to top

Inspector’s comments

This case provides a very good example of assessing to keep people safe when the individual poses a low risk of serious harm. Assessment by the responsible officer started positively when the prison requested the HDC assessment and they set about gathering relevant information from Christopher, his family, the police and the prison.

Involving Through the Gate at this stage was good practice and the responsible officer was able to verify that Christopher’s behaviour in prison had been positive and he had continued to engage in low-level substance misuse interventions, his use of cannabis having been central to his commission of the index offences. Confirmation from the police that Christopher was not a member of a gang enabled the responsible officer to produce a defensible assessment regarding Christopher’s low risk of serious harm status, despite his conviction for possession of an offensive weapon. Although omitting to complete a full risk of harm analysis might have been a defensible decision at the pre-sentence stage, the quality of case supervision following release was enhanced by the reversal of this action. In doing this, the responsible officer was able to present a cohesive and clear risk assessment that confirmed the assessment of low risk, but which also identified the key factors that required monitoring on release to prevent an escalation.

All too often we see corners being cut in low risk cases, but this was not so on this occasion and it was great to see.

Back to top

This case summary is intended for training/learning purposes and includes a fictional name.