The use and form of psychiatric reports in sentencing

Warner, Kate
Criminal justice system
Published Date
CRG Report Number
14-75

Criminology Research Council grant ; (14/75)

The report of this research was submitted to the University of Tasmania as a Master of Laws thesis under the title 'A Study of Pre-Sentence Psychiatric Reports in Tasmania'. This degree was awarded to Mrs Warner.

The research reviewed all cases in Tasmania in which the offenders were remanded for psychiatric reports in two periods, 1969-70 and 1974-75. A total of more than 450 cases were considered. Judges and magistrates were also interviewed by the researcher.

The study found no increase in the number or proportion of offenders remanded for psychiatric reports by Courts of Petty Sessions in 1974-75 compared with 1969-70, and for female offenders the number remanded declined significantly. Both higher and lower courts remanded significantly more sexual offenders than any other category of male offender and the data suggested that the courts were more likely to remand offenders with prior convictions than first offenders. Both the objective data from the remand samples and the interview responses of judges and magistrates indicated that previous psychiatric history and the requests of probation officers and counsel for psychiatric reports also influenced the decision to remand. The results suggested that psychiatric reports have considerable impact upon the courts' decisions, particularly in relation to treatment. The courts appeared to follow treatment recommendations in about 75 percent of cases and sentencing recommendations in about 64 percent of cases. Evidence from the questionnaire responses and the recommendations made and acted upon showed that the role of the psychiatrist was not merely to detect and treat mentally ill offenders, but extended to the assessment and explanation of selected offenders' behaviour and to advising the court of the best way to deal with them. The research also showed that of those offenders who were required to submit to treatment in 1969-70, a large proportion subsequently required further treatment, and the majority re-offended. Prognoses in relation to recidivism were often inaccurate. For petty offenders, hospital orders or transfer directions probably resulted in periods of involuntary incarceration for much longer than they would have been obliged to suffer if imprisoned. Probationers with a condition as to psychiatric treatment received treatment in only a minority of cases.

The empirical evidence collected and analysed and the observation and study of the legal and administrative provisions which regulate the use of psychiatric reports revealed certain deficiencies, and a number of recommendations were made to overcome these. These recommendations were:

  1. There should be a specific statutory power in Tasmania to remand an offender for psychiatric examination for the purposes of a pre-sentence report.
  2. The power to order in-patient and out-patient psychiatric treatment as a condition of probation should be embodied in a specific statutory provision. Such power should be contingent upon the following matters:
    1. A request to a psychiatrist for a report based upon an examination of the offender, with reasons for the request and copies or a summary of relevant material relating to the offender and the offence.
    2. A report recommending treatment, and
    3. The offenders consent to treatment.
  3. Whenever a psychiatric report is ordered, the psychiatrist should be made aware of the reasons for requesting it and the issues he is required to discuss.
  4. Agreed guidelines as to the scope of psychiatric examinations should be prepared and circulated among psychiatrists covering observational and historical aspects of written evaluations for psychiatric reports.
  5. The courts should keep records of psychiatric reports requested.
  6. There should be a legislative power, subject to adequate safeguards, enabling judges and magistrates to remand certain offenders to a psychiatric hospital for observation.
  7. Magistrates and judges should be informed of treatment details.
  8. Close cooperation between probation officers and the psychiatric services should improve the management of psychiatric probation order patients.
  9. The hospital or psychiatrist in charge of the treatment of hospital order patients should be Iable to refer patients back to court if they are found to be uncooperative or unsuitable for treatment.