I feel a little sorry for the probation service. They took most of the blame for the fact that Dano Sonnex was at liberty to perpetrate the horrific murder of two French students in their London flat in June 2008. It is accepted that there were failures at every step of the criminal justice system, but too much has been attributed to probation errors.
This raises an important issue: by starving the probation service of the funding needed to do its job, how much is the government responsible?
Somewhere along the way, for reasons not necessarily the probation service's fault, Sonnex was classified as a medium risk rather than the obviously high risk he was. That undervaluation of his dangerousness led to his file being dealt with by a low-level, inexperienced, very overworked offender manager rather than by experienced specialists.
Other mistakes followed, many the result of admittedly poor management in the London probation area handling the case. In addition, magistrates, through a misunderstanding, released Sonnex on bail even though they knew that steps were being taken to recall him to prison. Finally, the police took two weeks to go to Sonnex's family home to get him. He had committed the murders a few hours before.
However the blame is apportioned, the government's treatment of the probation service is once again in question. Probation officers feel strongly that they are being asked to perform a difficult and sensitive job - aimed at the safety and protection of the public - without the resources and funding needed.
Yet when an offender under supervision commits a serious crime, the probation service gets the flak. With more and more freed prisoners being subject to probation, as well as more offenders being sentenced to community punishments entailing supervision, the workload on probation officers is increasing, without a commensurate growth in their numbers or other resources. Jack Straw, speaking after the Sonnex trial and revealing the findings of two independent inquiries into what had gone wrong, rejected that argument. "Probation spending has increased 70% in real terms in the past 12 years. The fundamental problems - as the independent reports emphasise - were managerial."
That last may have been so in the particular circumstances of the Sonnex case (and the chief of probation of London paid the price by resigning) but Straw's broader point is disputed. Napo, the probation union, claims that much of the extra money allocated to probation was wasted on an IT system that didn't work. Moreover, the government has announced savage cuts in probation expenditure, says Napo. The government says the cuts will be modest.
Whatever the detailed validity of the financial complaints, the probation service feels frustrated, undervalued, under-respected and inadequately funded. Everything I have heard and been told recently suggests there is good reason for dissatisfaction. Probation is a hugely important part of our criminal justice system, especially as it is so closely tied to public safety. It deserves greater appreciation - and proper funding.
