UK Home Office: PC25 2005

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003:
IMPLEMENTATION ON 4 APRIL Probation

PURPOSE
This Circular provides additional guidance on the implementation of the Act.
Circular
REFERENCE NO:
ACTION
Chief Officers are asked to bring this circular to the attention of their staff with 25/2005
immediate effect.
ISSUE DATE:
SUMMARY 30 March 2005
The majority of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Justice Act are
being implemented on Monday 4 April 2005. This Circular summarises the IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
new arrangements and the preparations for their implementation. It also Immediate
provides additional guidance, building on that already issued, in the three
annexed documents: EXPIRY DATE:
A - National Implementation Guide for Community Sentencing Provisions; March 2010
B - Guidance on Unpaid Work Requirement;
C - Guidance on Employment, Training & Education. TO:
Chairs of Probation Boards
Information about further material in the pipeline is provided in the main body
Chief Officers of Probation
of this Circular.
Secretaries of Probation Boards
RELEVANT PREVIOUS PROBATION CIRCULARS
PC03/2005 – Supervision, Revocation and Recall for Prisoners Released on CC:
Licence Board Treasurers
PC10/2005 – Public Protection Framework, Risk of Harm and MAPPA Regional Managers
Thresholds Regional Offender Managers
PC15/2005 – National Standards
PC16/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003: Early Release & Recall AUTHORISED BY:
PC17/2005 – Disqualification Orders Richard Mason, Head of CJA
PC18/2005 – CJA New Sentences and the New Report Framework
Implementation Unit and Sarah
PC23/2005 – New Electronic Monitoring Contracts
Mann, Head of Interventions Unit
CONTACT FOR ENQUIRIES
See the relevant section of this Circular for details of contacts for specific ATTACHED:
subject areas. For other general queries about the Act and its implementation Annexes A, B and C, as detailed
please call the Criminal Justice Act Sentence Implementation Unit on aside
020 7217 8047 or e-mail to: Cja.sip@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
National Probation Directorate

Horseferry House, Dean Ryle Street, London, SW1P 2AW General Enquiries: 020 7217 0659 Fax: 020 7217 0660
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE
The main sentencing and release and recall provisions come in to force on 4 April 2005 for adult offenders (ie those aged
18 or over) and include:
• The new Community Order, a generic community sentence that replaces all existing community sentences. It must
include one or more of 12 Requirements
• A new Suspended Sentence Order (or “Custody Minus”) which must include one or more of the same 12
Requirements during the suspension period
• New public protection sentences, the extended sentence and imprisonment for public protection (IPP), for dangerous
offenders
• New release arrangements for prisoners sentenced to standard determinate sentences of imprisonment of 12 months
or more
• New recall arrangements
• New deferred sentencing arrangements
The new sentencing and release provisions will apply from Monday 4 April 2005 where the offence was committed on
or after that date. The existing arrangements will apply where the offence was committed before 4 April.
The new recall provisions, however, will apply to all offenders on licence from 4 April, regardless of the date of the
offence.
Custody Plus is not on the above list because it is expected to be implemented in September 2006. Nor is Intermittent
Custody, which has been live as a pilot in two prison establishments since last year but is only available in those
probation areas which are involved in the pilot. We expect to see expansion of the scheme later this year.
Note that the availability of two of the 12 Community Order (and Custody Minus) Requirements is restricted at the
moment: the Exclusion Requirement is currently being piloted in a handful of areas and the Attendance Centre
Requirement is only available where Attendance Centres are already established. The Act makes clear (s218) that courts
need to check the availability of Requirements in areas before including them in an Order. Sentencers are reminded of
this in the relevant Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance.
The Act’s “petty persistence” provision (s151), through which courts may impose a Community Order where the offender
has previously incurred three fines for related offences, even though the case is not otherwise serious enough to justify a
Community Order, is not being commenced at present.
Existing Orders available for juveniles will continue to be applied to those aged 17 and under. The new Community Order
will only apply to those aged 18 or over. The public protection sentences are available for juveniles although with the
difference that for serious crimes courts will have a greater discretion as to whether a juvenile should receive an
indeterminate sentence or an extended sentence.
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
The three annexes to this Circular supplement the material already supplied to areas in the CJA training and
subsequently. They are:
• the National Implementation Guide for Community Sentencing Provisions
• Guidance on Unpaid Work and
• Guidance on Employment, Training & Education.
This and other CJA material will be updated in the light of experience and to reflect comments received from areas. We
aim to issue a consolidated Manual on the Act in the autumn. More immediately further guidance is planned for issue on
the use of Drug Treatment and Alcohol Treatment Requirements and on managing Community Orders that contain
multiple Requirements within the new sentencing framework (probation circulars due out during April). A Home Office
Circular is also being issued this week, ‘Criminal Justice Act 2003 Commencement Order No. 8’, which includes details of
the legal transitional arrangements.
PC25/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003: Implementation on 4 April 2005 2

ACTION BY AREAS
The NPD and NOMS centre are responsible for interpreting the Act for operational colleagues and for overseeing
Service-wide implementation. To support the operation of the Act various arrangements have been put in place and area,
regional and national representatives have worked together to develop policy and practice guidance. Area responsibilities
in relation to implementation are set out below:
1. Implementation Management
Areas should ensure that their appointed CJA lead continues to forward any issues, comments or questions to their
regional CJA contact so that s/he in turn can liaise with the CJA Implementation Unit in the NPD (CJAIU). Regional
Implementation and Benefits Realisation Groups (RI&BRG) should continue actively to monitor the progress of
implementation across their regions so that effective practice can be disseminated across the Service. Regional
Implementation & Benefits Realisation Groups should inform the CJA Implementation Unit by April 22 of their views on
potential benefits that they would wish to see included in the overall benefits monitoring process.
2. Staff Training
All areas sent trainers to regional train-the-trainer events. Areas should ensure that all staff have received, or if not will
shortly receive, the training they need and have access to the relevant training materials and guidance.
Further training events are being arranged to help staff post-implementation deal with issues arising from the changes in
practice. More information on this will be available shortly.
Areas should ensure that arrangements are in place for CJA 03 succession training. Regions should ensure, via the
RI&BRG, that succession training planning and implementation is facilitated.
3. Information for offenders

Areas should ensure that offenders currently on licence are made aware of the changes to the recall arrangements and
that offenders receiving a Community Order, Custody Minus or the new Deferred Sentence understand what is required
of them. Leaflets for offenders will be distributed electronically to communications contacts by CJAIU ready for the first
Orders coming through and these should be used until printed versions arrive (planned for mid April). All offender leaflets
will be available electronically in 24 translations, and other formats on request.
4. Liaison with courts

It is essential that areas maintain a close working relationship with their local courts. As information becomes available
through the post-implementation monitoring arrangements it will be necessary to ensure that the new Pre-Sentence
Report process is working effectively. (See PC 18/2005).
The CJA Implementation Unit is producing a series of information sheets, one on each of the 12 Requirements, for report
writers to attach to PSRs when they hand them to the court. These will be issued electronically in Word format to area
communications contacts in time for the first Orders being made.
5. Monitoring and feedback

The area CJA lead (usually someone at ACO level) will have an important part to play in monitoring the use of the new
sentences. They need to assume a co-ordinating role, passing information to the Regional Manager. Paris Mikkides
recently sent areas an Excel spreadsheet that is to be used to collect data and Steve Murphy has written to Chiefs on this
subject.
FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACTS
The CJA team in the NPD will happily answer questions on the Act via email cja.sip@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk or telephone
020 7217 8047.
Immediate requests for clarification should be referred to:

• National Implementation Guide on Community Sentencing Provisions – Megan Jones on 020 7217 0770 or
Peter King on 020 7217 0678
• Unpaid Work - Janet Corcoran 020 7217 8877 (or Marcus Smart on 020 7217 0766 or Carolyn Gale on
020 7217 0686)
• Employment, Training & Education - Randel Barrows 020 7217 8323 or 07973 542991 or Marcus Smart on
020 7217 0766 (or Carolyn Gale on 020 7217 0686)
• Juvenile offenders – Kimberley Bingham on 020 7035 1319
PC25/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003: Implementation on 4 April 2005 3

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IMPLEMENTATION
First issued as part of Probation Circular 25/2005 – Annex A
IMPORTANT NOTE:
This version (5F) includes important amendments to
version 4F issued as the original PC25/2005 Annex A.
Main amendments are listed on the back page of this version.
National
Implementation
Guide
for the Criminal Justice Act 2003
community sentence provisions
Edition 2 Version 5F
May 2005
This Guide is intended for practitioners and managers in the National Probation Service.
It is not intended to be a legal guide for legal practitioners or advisors.
CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Contents
National Implementation Guide

for the Criminal Justice Act 2003 community sentence provisions
Edition 2 version 5F – May 2005
Contents Page
Introduction 3
Definition of terms 5
Section 1 A brief guide for report writers to the new community sentence provisions 7
1.1 Requirements 8
1.2 Sentencing process 9
1.3 Model combinations of Requirements 12
1.4 Case examples 19
1.5 Example wording of PSR proposals for the model combinations 28
of Requirements
Section 2 Details of the Requirements 37

2.1 Unpaid Work Requirement 39
2.2 Supervision Requirement 40
2.3 Programme Requirement 41
2.4 Drug Rehabilitation Requirement 43
2.5 Alcohol Treatment Requirement 43
2.6 Mental Health Treatment Requirement 44
2.7 Residence Requirement 45
2.8 Activity Requirement 45
2.9 Prohibited Activity Requirement 48
2.10 Exclusion Requirement 49
2.11 Curfew Requirement 50
2.12 Attendance Centre Requirement 50
2.13 General duties placed on the offender 51
Continued
National Probation Service Page 1

for England and Wales
CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Contents
Section 3 An overview of the sentencing provisions 53

3.1 A brief summary 53
3.2 Community Order 55
3.3 Custody Plus Order 56
3.4 Intermittent Custody Order 57
3.5 Suspended Sentence Order 60
3.6 Deferment of sentence 61
3.7 Conditional Cautions 64
3.8 Persistent offenders 64
Section 4 Sentencing, Requirements & combinations 65

4.1 Background 65
4.2 Seriousness 65
4.3 Purposes of sentencing 68
4.4 Combining Requirements 70
4.5 Sentencing and assessing seriousness 73
4.6 Offender Management Tiers 75
4.7 Working with combinations of Requirements 76
Section 5 Supervision and the management of orders 80

5.1 Responsible Officers, Offender Managers and Supervision Requirements 80
5.2 Starts and completions 82
5.3 Amendments, transfers and revocations for good progress 83
5.4 Breach of Requirements 85
5.5 Conviction for a further offence 88
5.6 Reviews of Orders 88
Amendments made in this version (updated from version 4F which was 91

circulated as Annex A to Probation Circular 23/2005)
Page 2 National Probation Service

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Introduction
i) Introduction
Edition 1 of this guide comprising only Section 1 was published in January 2005. Edition 2
(version 4F) was distributed electronically in March 2005. This second Edition (now in
version 5F):
• makes some minor changes in terminology and presentation to Section 1 (to take
account of developments elsewhere)
• includes further Case Examples in Section 1.4
• includes further Model PSR wordings in Section 1.5
• includes Sections 2 – 5 as indicated above.
The guidance will be developed in the light of experience and to reflect comments received.
Subsequent editions will include separate and more detailed sections on the new custodial
provisions, and the operation of Custody Plus.
Separate guidance on other more detailed issues will be issued separately.
Please note
This information is based on advice for probation staff which has been produced by the
National Probation Directorate at the Home Office with reference to the legal framework set
out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and published guidance from the Sentencing Guidelines
Council. The guidance is designed to ensure a consistent national approach to supporting
sentencers in their decision-making. It does not, of course, constrain their judicial
independence.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Definition of terms
ii) Definition of terms
The Act
1. Throughout this document the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is referred to as the Act. References
to the text of the Act are indicated as:
Section numbers = (§999)
Schedules = (Sch 99)
The Requirements which make up some of the new Orders introduced by the Act have been
listed in the same order throughout the CJA implementation documentation and materials.
They have been ordered to reflect their different types and purpose, and recommended
combinations of use. This is different to the Order in which they appear in the legislation, but
section numbers in the Act are provided for cross-reference.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines
2. Reference to the Guidelines is made at various points in this Guide, and staff may find it
useful to refer to them directly. The following Guidelines have been published in relation to
sentencing:
Overarching Principles: Seriousness
New Sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003
Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea
Copies of the documents can be found at: www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk
Seriousness of offending
3. Seriousness of offending refers to the seriousness of both the current offence(s) and that of
any other relevant previous offences taken into account, and whether or not the offences(s)
were committed on bail. It is explored in detail in the Sentencing Guidelines Council
Guideline on Seriousness which explains how seriousness derives from culpability and harm.
Risk
4. To avoid the confusion which can be caused by the unqualified use of the term ‘risk’, this
Guide follows the convention of using the terms:
likelihood of reconviction and risk of harm
Persistent and prolific
5. Persistent offenders are those who continue to offend over a period of time. Many offenders
on a wide range of community sentences are persistent. The new sentencing framework
addresses persistence through the normal range of Requirement combinations.
6. In addition, the Act also contains provisions for a court to consider persistence as an
aggravating factor in assessing the seriousness of ‘persistent petty offenders’ (§151). This
provision has not been commenced at present and there are no current plans to do so.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Definition of terms
7. In contrast, prolific offenders are those who offend with a high frequency, possibly committing
a range of different offences, and rapidly building up a substantial history of convictions.
These offenders will be covered by the management arrangements for Prolific and Other
Priority Offenders. Suitable packages of intervention for such cases can be proposed to
courts based on options derived from model combination number 12.
8. There is no absolute or empirical definition of a prolific offender. Individual cases are defined
locally by Crime and Disorder Partnerships as meriting special priority in view of the prolific
nature of their offences and the harm which they do to their local community.
Sentence Plan
9. In the Act Supervision becomes a specific Requirement rather than the overall description or
purpose of an entire order, so the continued use of the term Supervision Plan will be
potentially confusing. In view of this and the opportunity to achieve consistency with the
equivalent term in custodial sentences, the alternative term Sentence Plan is used
throughout. Sentence Planning and the management of offenders are covered in Section 5.
Offender Manager
10. This document reflects the National Offender Management Service offender management
model and uses the term Offender Manager in place of case manager, and in place of
supervising officer for Community and Suspended Sentence Orders. At present it is intended
that an Offender Manager will always be an employee of a Probation Board or member of a
Youth Offending Team, but will not necessarily be a Probation Officer.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) A brief guide for report writers
1 – A brief guide for report writers

– to the new community sentence provisions
a) The Act introduces a new Community Order which replaces all existing community sentences
for adults, and a new Suspended Sentence Order. It will apply to offences committed on or
after 4 April 2005. Offences committed before 4 April will be sentenced under existing
legislation. When adjourning for reports courts will give a specific indication of the Seriousness
of the Offending (that is, of the current offence(s) and any relevant previous convictions), and
the sentence imposed must normally be proportionate to this (for offences committed either
side of the 4 April 2005 it will be for the court to decide under which legislation sentence should
be passed). The Probation Service will use the appropriate report format to propose a
sentence (see PC 18/2005). The content of the sentence will be determined by the risk of
harm, likelihood of reconviction, and the particular offending related needs of the offender.
b) In the new Orders the content and purpose is defined by one or more of twelve possible
Requirements specified within it. All Community Orders consist of at least one Requirement. The
same menu of Requirements is available for the Community Order and the new Suspended
Sentence Order or ‘Custody Minus’. Requirements can be combined to produce an individual
package for each offender, subject to their overall restriction on liberty being commensurate with the
seriousness of the offending, and their suitability for the offender. The different Requirements ordered
must also be compatible, and as far as practicable do not interfere with the offender’s religious beliefs
or times of work and education. The over–use of Requirements to address offenders’ needs
irrespective of the seriousness of the offending must be avoided.
c) To support this framework of Requirements twelve basic (or model) combinations have been
devised to provide a structure within the flexibility given by the Act. These can be modified in
each case but limit the number of Requirements which can normally be proposed in relation to
the Seriousness of the Offending. These are described according to their different types. This
reflects their function, but at a more detailed level than the purposes of sentencing as outlined
in the Act itself (Section 142 of the Act and Sections 3 and 4.4 of this Guide).
Restriction Practical Support Personal Change Treatment Control
d) All Requirements start from the sentence date, but implementation may be deferred within National
Standards (e.g. an offending behaviour programme might start immediately after sentence or be
deferred until specific barriers to attendance have been removed). For multiple Requirement
Orders the court can specify a shorter completion time for one Requirement than another, but
otherwise all Requirements are considered to terminate at the end of the Order and the Order
terminates once the last of the Requirements has been completed.
e) Separate Requirements should be used to deliver each component of an Order. For example,
Employment, Training and Education should be delivered through a separate Activity
Requirement and an accredited substance misuse programme should be delivered through a
Programme Requirement (and not within a parallel Alcohol Treatment or Drug Rehabilitation
Requirement). This ensures that:
• the offender is clear about the expectations placed upon him / her
• the court is clear about the full extent of the level of intervention to be delivered
• the intentions of the court can be clearly enforced
• the use of specific resources is recorded and the demand for such provision monitored.
f) The exception to this is that a small amount of skills assessment or learning may be undertaken
within an Unpaid Work or Supervision Requirement within the limits set by National Standards.
g) The successful operation of the new framework is dependent on the effective use of Requirements in
appropriate combinations, and further information is given in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 below.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Requirements
1.1 Requirements
The twelve Requirements and brief details are given in Table 1 below. See Section 2 for detail.
Table 1 Criminal Justice Act 2003 – Requirements

Requirement Level of Length Report Main
Seriousness Purpose(s) **
Unpaid work Low 40 – 80 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

Medium 80 – 150 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’ reparation
rehabilitation
High 150 – 300 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’
Supervision Low up to 12 months ‘Fast Delivery’ rehabilitation
Medium 12 – 18 months ‘Standard’
High 12 – 36 months ‘Standard’
Programme (Accredited) Medium stated number (or depends on rehabilitation
range) of sessions programme
High
Drug rehabilitation Low 6 months • see footnote rehabilitation
Offender must consent Medium 6 – 12 months ‘Standard’
Alcohol treatment Low 6 months • see footnote rehabilitation
Mental health treatment Medium up to 36 months ‘Standard’ rehabilitation
Offender must consent High
Residence Medium up to 36 months ‘Standard’ rehabilitation
High protection
(specified) Activity Medium 20 – 30 days* ‘Fast Delivery’ rehabilitation

High up to 60 days* reparation
Prohibited Activity Low up to 24 / 36 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

for SSO / CO protection
Medium
High
Exclusion Low up to 2 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
Medium up to 6 months* protection
High up to 12 months*
Curfew Low up to 2 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
typically up to 12 hours / day Medium 2 – 3 months* ‘Fast Delivery’ protection
High 4 – 6 months* ‘Fast Delivery’
Attendance Centre Low 12 – 36 hours ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
NOTES Full details are set out in Section 2
* Length = in line with Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines.
Report = the minimum level of Report which should be used when proposing the Requirement (but the court
may be able to make the Requirement without considering such a Report – see Section 2).
● A ‘Fast Delivery’ Report may be sufficient where a current treatment plan is already available.
** Purpose = indicates NPD’s interpretation of the main purpose of the Requirement. All Requirements are
presumed to meet the purpose of the reduction of crime, either through rehabilitation, or by deterrence through
their punitive impact. See Section 4.3.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) A brief guide for report writers
1.2 Sentencing process
The new sentencing framework uses the following process:

• Court indicates the seriousness of offending and purpose(s) to be achieved in
sentencing
• Probation Service uses ‘Fast Delivery’ or ‘Standard Delivery’ PSR process, the latter
including OASys
• to determine an appropriate sentencing package based on a new Requirement and
Intervention Targeting Schedule
• Model determines the maximum number of Requirements which should be proposed
and appropriate combinations for different purposes
• Proposal made to court and sentencing
• After sentence the case is allocated to the appropriate Offender Management Tier.
Diagram 1 – Adjournment 1 - Court determines level of seriousness

1 Court indicates whether
offending falls within the low,
medium or high seriousness
range for a Community Order. High
2 Court indicates the intended
purpose(s) of sentence and
may also request an indication
Med
of the suitability of particular

Requirements it feels should
be considered.
3 This information is conveyed Low
to the Probation Service.
For Reports prepared pending
appearance at the Crown Court
steps 1 and 2 will be based on a
review of the Crown Prosecution Service papers.
Diagram 2 – Assessment 2 - NPS assessment of the offender & type of report

Assessment = = Risk of Harm screening + OGRS F = Fast Delivery
4 Probation Service allocates = Full OASys assessment S = Standard Delivery
the inquiry to the appropriate
report production process,
according to the level of High F F S S
assessment necessary. S S
5 Report writer uses OASys as
appropriate to assess:
Med F F S S
S
♦ likelihood of reconviction
♦ risk of harm
♦ and level and type of F F F
Low F
offending related needs. S S S
A Fast Delivery report may
recommend the court to adjourn for Increasing complexity, risk and need
a Standard Delivery PSR.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Requirements
Diagram 3 – Targeting 3 - NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements

6 Report writer considers N Combinations available = Combinations including Supervision Requirement
suitable Requirements in the
3 Long UW Intensive
light of assessment and the 10 Treatment
High
Long UW Long UW
court’s indications above, 11 + Curfew 4 Long Intensive
+ ETE 12 Control
9 Personal
using the Requirement and 1 Long Restrict Change
Intervention Targeting Medium

3 8
Schedule. Medium UW Treatment
Med 4
Med UW
Medium Ã
Fines and Compensation

+ ETE
7 Cases may exist in the cells 1 Med Restrict 7 Personal
Change
marked Ã but for the
3 Short UW Short
sentence to be commensurate 6 Treatment
with seriousness they should Low 2

Attendance
Centre
Practical
Ã Ã
5
only receive the same 1 Short Restrict Support
combinations in the nearest

occupied cell to the left. Increasing complexity, risk and need
This diagram is shown enlarged

Further information about this diagram is given in Section 4.5
on the following page.
Diagram 4 – Moderation 4 - NPS checks combination matches seriousness

8 Report writer matches the 1 = maximum number Requirements proposed (inc Supervision)
level of intervention against

the seriousness of offending,
9 adjusting the number of
High 2 2 2+ 3+
Requirements and their
content / length as necessary:
♦
Med 1 2 3 3
reducing the level of

intervention to suit the
seriousness
♦ or adding or extending
Low 1 1 1 1
interventions (e.g.
Unpaid Work) to suit the Increasing complexity, risk and need
seriousness.
Proposal 5 - Post sentence - Initial allocation to OM Tier

Usual Offender
10 Proposal made to court Management Tier 1 2 3 4
indicating details of the
3 Long UW
10 Intensive
individual Requirements Treatment
High
Long UW Long UW Intensive
11 4 12
proposed , with an outline + Curfew + ETE
9
Long
Personal
Control
Sentence Plan. The proposal 1 Long Restrict Change
is NOT phrased in terms of 8 Medium

3 Medium UW Treatment
packages or set combinations
Med 4
Med UW
Medium
+ ETE
of Requirements. 1 Med Restrict 7 Personal
Change
11 Court makes Order. 3 Short UW Short

6 Treatment
Diagram 5 = Sentence Low 2 Attendance
Centre
Practical
5
12 After sentence the case is 1 Short Restrict Support
allocated to the appropriate

Increasing complexity, risk and need
Offender Management Tier
(this may change
subsequently).

A one page 5 Step Guide to Sentencing Proposals A brief guide for report writers
STEP 1 – adjourn
Court makes initial 3 - NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements

assessment of
seriousness and
adjourns case N Combinations available = Combinations including Supervision Requirement
STEP 2 – assess
Use OASys to
3 Long UW
10
Intensive
Treatment
assess
High
Long UW Long UW
risk of harm, 11 + Curfew 4 Long Intensive
likelihood of + ETE 12 Control
reconviction and 9 Personal
offending related 1 Long Restrict Change
needs
Medium
STEP 3 – target 8
Select one or more
Med 4
Med UW
Medium Ã

Requirements as + ETE
appropriate 1 Med Restrict 7 Personal
Change
STEP 4 – moderate
Check number and

3 Short UW Short
6 Treatment
length of
Requirements is
commensurate with
Low 2
Attendance
Centre
Practical
Ã Ã
seriousness, and 5
adjust 1 Short Restrict Support
STEP 5 – propose
Make proposal to Increasing complexity, risk and need

court

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Case examples
1.3 Model combinations of Requirements
1.3.1 The following tables set out the twelve basic, model combinations. These may contain:
ϑ a Base Requirement which defines the type of Order and its broad purpose
λ a Supporting Requirement which is recommended to support the impact and work
of the Base Requirement and should always be included in proposals.
O one or more Optional Requirements which can also be used to support the
purpose of the Order.
1.3.2 The model combinations may be modified to suit the circumstances of the individual case.
1.3.3 To ensure that in the tailoring of a Community Order to a particular case the overall
restriction on liberty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, the number of
Requirements proposed should normally be limited as follows:
Low seriousness = maximum 1 Requirement
Medium seriousness = maximum 1 – 3 Requirements depending on combination
High seriousness = maximum 1 – 3 Requirements depending on combination
(this can be exceeded for the Long Personal Change, Intensive
Treatment and Intensive Control combinations 9, 10 & 12).
1.3.4 In the new sentencing framework Orders are made up of individual Requirements, each of
which must be specified, and the model combinations described here have no legal status.
Report writers should make NO reference in the wording of their sentence proposals to
model combinations or set packages of Requirements. Instead they should itemise the
specific pieces of work to be undertaken and interventions to be used with the offender,
and list the Requirements and their respective lengths necessary to deliver them.
1.3.5 The twelve combinations can be grouped according to their different types as indicated in
their titles. This reflects their function, but at a more detailed level than the purposes of
sentencing as outlined in the Act itself (§142, see Section 3). The five types are:
Type Function Combinations
1 Restriction Restriction, Attendance Centre and Unpaid Work 1 – 4 & 11
2 Practical Support Supervision to address practical problems 5
3 Personal Change focused on changing personal behaviour 7&9
4 Treatment clinical & other interventions to change behaviour 6, 8 & 10
5 Control focused on control and public protection 12
1.3.6 Use of the different combinations is illustrated in the case examples given in Section 1.4.
1.3.7 Suggested wordings for proposing Requirements are included in Section 1.5 ‘Details of
Requirements’.
1.3.8 The twelve combinations are listed in Table 5 in Section 4.4.
All Orders / model combinations must be allocated to an Offender Manager except where the
only Requirement is an electronically monitored Curfew or Exclusion, or an Attendance Centre. Full
details are given in see Section 5.1.
Page 12
Recommended model combinations
1 Restriction Seriousness Level = Low – High

ONE of the following Requirements as appropriate
ϑ Curfew (up to 12 hours per day) for up to 2 months for Low Seriousness
for 2 – 3 months for Medium Seriousness
for 4 – 6 months for High Seriousness
ϑ Exclusion up to 2 months for Low Seriousness

about 6 months for Medium Seriousness
about 12 months for High Seriousness
ϑ Prohibited Activity
Likelihood of Reconviction = Low – Medium Maximum number of Requirements = 1

Risk of Harm = Low – Medium Offender Management Tier = 1
2 Attendance Centre Seriousness Level = Low

ONE Requirement only
ϑ Attendance Centre 12 – 36 hours
Likelihood of Reconviction = Low Maximum number of Requirements = 1

Risk of Harm = Low Offender Management Tier = 1
3 Unpaid Work Seriousness Level = Low – High

ϑ Unpaid Work 40 – 80 hours for Low Seriousness

80 – 150 hours for Medium Seriousness
150 – 300 hours for High Seriousness
National Probation Service

4 Unpaid Work with ETE Seriousness Level = Medium – High

TWO Requirements
ϑ Unpaid Work 80 – 150 hours for Medium Seriousness

150 – 300 hours for High Seriousness
λ (specified) Activity = ETE package
This option should be proposed for cases with a low or medium risk of harm and low overall level of
offending related need, but where poor basic or employment related skills contribute to the
offending.
The restriction on liberty arising from the Activity Requirement should be taken into account in
determining the number of hours of Unpaid Work.
Risk of Harm = Low – Medium Offender Management Tier = 1 or 2
5 Practical Support Seriousness Level = Low

ϑ Supervision up to 12 months
This option should be proposed as an alternative to options 1 – 4 (Restrictive Requirements,

Attendance Centre or Unpaid Work) for Low Seriousness cases where addressing practical issues
related to offending is more appropriate. It does not aim to tackle other significant offending related
needs. Supervision may include the referral of the offender to externally provided services, to
address financial management, Employment, Training and Education etc. The Requirement may
be shorter than 6 months.
6 Short Treatment Seriousness Level = Low

ONE of the following Requirements as appropriate
ϑ Drug Rehabilitation Low level treatment for 6 months
ϑ Alcohol Treatment 6 months
At the Low level of seriousness proposals are normally limited to a single Requirement, so
additional support through Supervision will not be available for treatment Requirements at this
level. All support necessary should be provided through the treatment package.
While a ‘Standard Delivery’ PSR will normally be necessary for Treatment Requirements, a ‘Fast
Delivery’ Report may be sufficient for a proposal for Short Treatment where a current treatment
plan is already available.
Page 14
7 Medium Personal Change Seriousness Level = Medium

TWO Requirements selected from
λ Supervision 12 – 18 months to support other Reqs
AND ONE of the following Requirements as appropriate
ϑ Programme (booster programme where main

programme undertaken on previous Order)
ϑ (specified) Activity to deliver specific non – accredited activity
ϑ Unpaid Work up to 100 hours for extra restriction on liberty
plus any ONE of the following Requirements if necessary

O Programme for second offence – specific programme
O (specified) Activity to deliver specific non – accredited activity
O Unpaid Work up to 100 hours for extra restriction on liberty
O Residence
Likelihood of Reconviction = Medium – High Maximum number of Requirements = 3
8 Medium Treatment Seriousness Level = Medium

λ Supervision 12 – 18 months to support treatment
ϑ Drug Rehabilitation
ϑ Alcohol Treatment
ϑ Mental Health Treatment
plus any ONE of the following Requirements if necessary

O Programme
O Residence e.g. at private address. Residence at a place
in connection with treatment can be
specified within a Treatment Requirement.
O (specified) Activity
The equivalent of the current medium intensity DTTO would include 4 Requirements: Supervision,
DRR, Programme & Activity. The use of 4 Requirements should normally be reserved for cases at
the High Seriousness level (see combination 10). Where in exceptional circumstances 4
Requirements are used for a Medium Seriousness case their length should be lower than at the
High level.
Likelihood of Reconviction = Medium – High Maximum number of Requirements = 3

9 Long Personal Change Seriousness Level = High

λ Supervision 12 months + to support other Requirements
ϑ Programme (booster programme where main

programme undertaken on previous Order)
ϑ (specified) Activity to deliver specific non – accredited activity
ϑ Unpaid Work up to 100 hours for extra restriction on liberty
plus any of the following Requirements if appropriate

O Programme for second offence – specific programme
O (specified) Activity to deliver specific non – accredited activity
O Unpaid Work up to 100 hours for extra restriction on liberty
O Residence
O Prohibited Activity
O Exclusion
O Curfew for extra restriction on liberty
O Attendance Centre for extra restriction on liberty
Likelihood of Reconviction = Medium – High Number of Requirements = 2 +
Risk of Harm = Low – High Offender Management Tier = 3 or 4
Page 16
10 Intensive Treatment Seriousness Level = High

λ Supervision 12 months + to support treatment
ϑ Drug Rehabilitation
ϑ Alcohol Treatment
ϑ Mental Health Treatment
plus any of the following Requirements if necessary

O Unpaid Work for extra restriction on liberty subject to
suitability
O Programme
O (specified) Activity
O Residence e.g. at private address. Residence at a place
in connection with treatment can be
specified within a Treatment Requirement.
O Exclusion
O Curfew for extra restriction on liberty
The equivalent of the current high intensity DTTO would include 4 Requirements: Supervision,
DRR, Programme & Activity.
Likelihood of Reconviction = High Number of Requirements = 2 +
11 Long Unpaid Work + Curfew Seriousness Level = High

TWO Requirements only
ϑ Unpaid Work 150 – 300 hours
λ Curfew 2 – 6 months
This option replaces the current ‘ICCP’ option with low rehabilitation.

12 Intensive Control Seriousness Level = High

THREE Requirements
ϑ Supervision 12 months +
ϑ Programme general or offence specific
ϑ (specified) Activity = ETE package
plus any of the following Requirements if appropriate

O Unpaid Work 40 – 100 for extra restriction on liberty
O Programme offence – specific to follow general
O Drug Rehabilitation
O Alcohol Treatment
O Mental Health Treatment
O Residence
O Exclusion
O Curfew 2 – 6 months
This option can be used and adapted to provide a range of combinations for offenders with high
needs, high likelihood of re-offending and high seriousness of offending, including Prolific and
Other Priority Offenders and those aged 18 - 20. It replaces the existing ICCP and ISM packages.
Mentoring should be delivered as part of the Supervision Requirement.
Likelihood of Reconviction = High Number of Requirements = 3 +
Diagram 6 translates the previous Orders / interventions into the new framework of Requirements.
Key to model combination numbers

6 - Old Orders translated into new Requirements
This diagram illustrates how Orders available previously can be replicated 3 Unpaid Work
using combinations of Requirements within a new Community Order
3 = Model combination number

4 Unpaid Work with ETE
ICCP Unpaid Work 5 Practical Support

11
‘lite’ Curfew
CPO Unpaid Work 3 6 Short Treatment
(Activity) 4 CRO Supervision 5
7 Medium Personal Change
CPRO Unpaid Work 7 CRO + Supervision 7
Supervision Think First Programme
8 Medium Treatment
(other Reqs) 9 DIDs etc (other Reqs) 9
9 Long Personal Change
ICCP Supervision DTTO Supervision
Programme DRR 8 10 Intensive Treatment
12
Activity Programme 10
(other Reqs) (other Reqs) 11 Long UW with Curfew
12 Intensive Control
Page 18
1.4 Case examples

Notes
a) The suggested proposals given below indicate the lengths of the Requirements. The PSR
writer may also wish to indicate the frequency of contact for individual Requirements and for
the Order overall where appropriate (minimal expected frequencies of contact are set within
National Standards).
b) These examples include suggested proposals but are not example PSRs. Example PSR
proposals are given in the following Section (1.5).
c) The examples give the court’s initial indication of seriousness. The seriousness with which a
particular case is viewed may vary between different courts. The PSR writer might suggest a
lower level of seriousness where assessment of the case reveals a lower level of culpability
than first thought, or the presence of exceptional personal factors. The report can also address
any negative consequences of a custodial sentence. Conversely, the report may recommend a
higher level of seriousness, including custody, if the circumstances support it.
d) The report writer might suggest payment of compensation in addition to any of the
combinations of Requirements suggested where this is appropriate.
1. Sian Tate
• 25 year old female

• Current offence – Fraud (value £2500)
• No previous convictions
• Fast Delivery PSR requested indicating medium seriousness
Sian is a 25-year-old single woman. She has no dependants and lives alone in a flat in an
attractive area of town. She has a large mortgage. A university graduate, she has worked as a
reporter on a local newspaper for the last two years.
She pleaded guilty to one offence of fraudulently obtaining £2500 by deception. She has no
previous convictions. CPS documents show that she falsified her expenses over a three-month
period. In her statement to police she explained that she had been struggling to keep up her
mortgage payments and saw falsifying her expenses as an easy way to clear some debts. She is
extremely remorseful and has already begun paying off the sum she falsely claimed. However, she
has been dismissed from her job at the newspaper. She has found employment as a clerical
assistant at an insurance firm.
The Court indicated that they regarded the offence as being of medium seriousness within the
community sentence band. They requested a ‘Fast Delivery’ report, and stated that they intended
to impose a sentence that would fulfil the purpose of punishment.
• Proposal = Community Order with one Requirement:

- Unpaid work Requirement = 150 hours.
• Model combination 3 ‘Medium Unpaid Work’

2. John Islip
• 36 year old male

• Current offence – Theft of £2000 worth of copper piping
• Previous convictions – assault and affray 16 years ago = CPO completed
• Standard Delivery PSR ordered indicating medium seriousness in Community Sentence
band
John is a 36-year-old man. He currently lives with his two children, aged 14 and 11, for whom he is
the main carer. John had a stable family and work life for 15 years, but he was made redundant 9
months ago when the local steelworks closed down and has been unable to find work since. His
unemployment caused great tension in the family home and his wife left the home six months ago.
He has found it difficult to cope emotionally with these upheavals and for the last three months he
has been treated with anti-depressants by his GP. The loss of his wife’s income has heightened
John’s financial difficulties; there are serious mortgage arrears and the family home is shortly to be
repossessed.
John has pleaded guilty to one offence of theft, to the value of £2000. The offence involved the
theft of copper piping from the yard of a plumbers’ merchants. John’s police statement indicates
that he saw the piping by chance in the yard, which was unlocked and unattended, and made an
instant decision to steal it in the hope that he would be able to sell it and stave off his financial
problems. He was apprehended while loading the piping into his van.
He has one previous conviction, 16 years ago, for assault and affray. He received a 200-hour
Community Service Order, which he successfully completed.
The Court adjourned for a Standard Delivery PSR. They indicated that they regarded the offence
as being of medium seriousness within the community sentence band, and stated that they
intended to impose a sentence with the primary purpose of rehabilitation.
Proposal = Community Order with two Requirements:

- Supervision Requirement = 6 months
- specified Activity Requirement for 20 days (to attend the local Citizens Advice
Bureau for advice and assistance on debt management and accommodation)
• Model combination 7 ‘Medium Personal Change’
3. Sarah Lambeth

• Current offence – Excess alcohol 2 ½ times limit
• Previous convictions – Excess alcohol 2 ½ limit two years ago = fined £400 and banned
1 year
• Standard Delivery PSR requested indicating ‘so serious’ as to merit a custodial sentence
Sarah is a 33-year-old woman. She has pleaded guilty to an offence of driving with excess alcohol.
In interview she states that she had driven to a pub after work, with the intention of leaving her car
there and catching the bus home after a few drinks. She missed the bus and, not wanting to be late
to prepare her family’s evening meal, decided to drive home. When stopped she was found to be
2½ times over the legal limit.
She has one previous conviction, for a similar offence two years ago, when she was also 2½ times
over the limit. On that occasion she was fined £400 and disqualified from driving for 1 year.
Page 20
[Sarah Lambeth continued]
The Court adjourned for a Standard Delivery PSR and indicated that they regarded the offence as
being so serious that a custodial sentence was being considered. They stated that they wished to
impose a sentence that met the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation.
Sarah has two school age children. Her partner is a long-distance lorry driver who is often away
from home. She works as a secretary for a local firm. Her employers are aware of her convictions
but have taken no action. The PSR author could find no evidence of alcohol dependency, but
discovered a pattern of occasional binge drinking.
Proposal = Community Order with three Requirements:

- Programme Requirement = Drink Impaired Drivers Programme
- Unpaid Work Requirement = 100 hours
• Model combination 9 ‘Long Personal Change’
4. Ryan Thorney

• Current offence – Theft (shop) x 6
• The Court adjourned for a Standard Delivery PSR but indicated that they considered
Ryan’s offending to be so serious as to justify a custodial sentence
Ryan is a 23-year-old single man, living in poor quality privately rented accommodation near the
town centre. He has pleaded guilty to 6 offences of theft from shops. He has a substantial record of
previous convictions, as follows:
1996 (aged 15 years) Criminal damage Conditional discharge 12m

1997 (aged 16 years) Theft Fine £20
1998 (aged 17 years) Commercial burglary Supervision Order 1year
2000 (aged 20 years) Theft Fine £50
2001 (aged 20 years) Theft x3 YOI 3 months
2002 (aged 21 years) Theft x4 CRO 12 months
2003 (aged 22 years) Theft x2 CPRO with ETS condition
He has a poor record of complying with community sentences and did not start the ETS
programme.
In interview Ryan states that he intended to sell the various items he stole from town centre stores,
in order to raise cash to fund his heroin addiction. He tells the report author that he is currently
using about £80 worth of heroin daily, as well as methadone bought on the street. He goes on to
indicate that he began using cannabis at the age of 18. A year later he was introduced to heroin
and since then his usage has gradually increased. He says that all his offending from that time
onwards has been to fund his heroin use, but that until now he has never felt able to disclose that
he is a heroin user and as a result he has never sought treatment.
Proposal = Community Order with four Requirements:

- Drug Rehabilitation Requirement = 12 months
- Programme Requirement = ETS
- Exclusion Requirement = 6 months from the Arndale Shopping Centre
• Model combination 10 ‘Intensive Treatment’

5. Wayne Page

• Current offences – theft
– assault PC
– commercial burglary
The Court has adjourned for a Standard Delivery PSR, but has indicated that it considers Wayne’s
offending to be so serious that a custodial sentence is being considered.
Wayne is a 20-year-old male, who has pleaded guilty to three offences of theft, assault on a police
constable and burglary of commercial premises. The offences comprise two separate incidents
over a three-week period. The theft was of toiletries from a local store, while the assault occurred
while he was being arrested for the burglary, which was committed with two other young men.
Electrical goods worth £400 were recovered from the scene.
Wayne has a lengthy list of previous convictions, as follows:
1999 (aged 15 years) Domestic burglary Supervision Order 12 months

2001 (aged 17 years) Criminal damage CPO 60 hours
2001 (aged 18 years) Criminal damage CPO 60 hours
2002 (aged 19 years) Domestic burglary YOI 4 months
2003 (aged 20 years) Theft CPO 40 hours
2004 (aged 20 years) Common assault Fine £300
2004 (aged 20 years) Criminal damage CRO 12 months
2004 (aged 20 years) Assault PC CPO 50 hours
In interview Wayne states that the current offences were intended to raise money to buy drugs and
food. His mother and stepfather evicted him from the family home three years ago. Since then he
has never had stable accommodation and has moved around the full range of local hostels. For the
last few months he has been sleeping on the floors of friends. He is using £10 worth of heroin
daily, having begun using the drug three months ago. He has never had a job and only now feels
able to admit that he has never learned to read or write. He is unable to see any other way of
existing except by offending. Wayne comes within the local definition of a Prolific Offender.
Proposal = Community Order with 5 Requirements

- Supervision Requirement = 2 years
- Drug Rehabilitation Requirement = 6 months
- Residence Requirement = at local voluntary hostel (not in Approved
Premises)
- specified Activity Requirement = to deliver an ETE package of 60 days
- Programme Requirement = “Think First”
• Model combination 12 ‘Intensive Control’
Note
This is a serious case in which a court might alternatively impose a Suspended Sentence Order.
To anticipate this possibility, an alternative proposal with fewer Requirements to take account of
the (suspended) custodial sentence would be as follows:
Proposal = Suspended Sentence Order with 2 Requirements

- Supervision Requirement = 1 year
- Programme Requirement = “Think First”
Page 22
6. Bradley Smith

• Current offence – Theft (handling) of TV entertainment system value £1500
• Previous convictions – assault and affray 6 years ago = CPO completed
• Standard Delivery PSR ordered indicating medium seriousness in Community Sentence
band
Bradley is a 26-year-old man. He has pleaded guilty to one offence of handling stolen goods,
involving a television home cinema system, which had been stolen from a local electrical
superstore. His only previous conviction was 6 years ago, for offences of common assault and
affray. On that occasion he received a CPO for 100 hours, which he completed successfully.
The Court has adjourned for a Standard Delivery PSR. They have indicated that they regard the
offence as being of medium seriousness within the Community Sentence band, and that they
intend their sentence to fulfil the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation.
Bradley lives alone in a council flat. He has poor literacy and numeracy skills. He has a history of
temporary, unskilled jobs and has been unemployed for five months. During this period he has
found it difficult to manage financially and has run up considerable debts.
In interview he states that he saw the offence as a means of solving his debt problem. He has a
friend who worked in the stockroom of the electrical superstore, and who had boasted about how
easy it was to steal goods from there. An arrangement was made that this person would steal the
home cinema system and pass it on to Bradley, who would sell it and keep most of the cash.
Proposal = Community Order with two Requirements:

- Specified Activity Requirement to deliver an ETE package of 20 days
• Model combination 4 ‘Medium Unpaid Work + Skills’
7. David Marsham

• Current offence – £300 criminal damage
• Previous convictions:
• 1992 (aged 22 years) Common Assault Fine £50 + compensation
• 1997 (aged 27) Theft x2 Fine £100 + compensation
• Fast Delivery PSR requested indicating low seriousness in Community Sentence band
PSR indicates the David has not had a stable address for the last 6 years and is currently NFA. He
cannot read or write and is not claiming benefits. He survives with the support of acquaintances
and help from local charities working with the homeless. The current offence occurred when he
damaged a shop doorway whilst sleeping rough. There is no evidence of any substance abuse.
David tells the PSR author he does not claim benefits because he cannot understand the system
as he cannot read or write. There may be mental health problems but we cannot confirm this at this
stage. PSR author proposes a practical support sentence of a single Supervision Requirement in
order to "signpost" support for David in terms of accommodation, finance and literacy.
Proposal = Community Order with one Requirement:

• Model combination 5 ‘Practical Support’

8. Robert Millbank

• Current offence – common assault on ex-partner
1994 (aged 33) Criminal damage Fine £100
1997 (aged 36) Assault PC Conditional Discharge
+ Criminal damage 60 hours CPO completed
• Court requests Fast Delivery PSR indicating it is considering a single Requirement of
Unpaid Work as the offence is serious enough to merit a community sentence (Community
Order low seriousness)
PO returns to court asking for a full adjournment for a Standard Delivery PSR as there appears to
be some further work needing to be done on risk assessment.
Full PSR indicates this offence was the assault of an ex partner during contact with their child.
Discussions indicate that all 3 previous convictions had elements of domestic violence – the first
Criminal Damage was damage to a window during an argument, The assault PC occurred when he
was being arrested during a domestic disturbance although his partner did not press charges, and
the final Criminal Damage was damage to the neighbours car during an altercation. The current
offence was a slap to the face of the female victim. Further enquiries show that the couple’s two
children are on the Child Protection Register due to the perceived levels of violence in the
household. The PSR author indicates that whilst the court has indicated it believes these matters to
be serious enough for a Community penalty it is the authors opinion that the seriousness is
increased by the level of harm posed by the offender, and following the guidance of the Sentencing
Guidelines Council proposes a Community Order consisting of supervision, a domestic violence
programme and UW.
Proposal = Community Order with three Requirements:

- Supervision Requirement = 1 year
- Programme Requirement = Domestic Violence Programme
9. Vincent Tufton

• Current offence – Using Threatening Words and Behaviour
• Previous convictions – two similar offences in the last year = fined
• Court requests a Fast Delivery PSR and indicate low seriousness within community
sentence band, and state intended purposes of sentencing as punishment and the
prevention of further offending
Vincent lives at home with his parents and younger sister. His background is stable, he has a good
educational record, and is currently undertaking a Media Studies course at the local FE college.
Last year he separated from his girlfriend and since then has taken to spending his evenings
hanging around the local shopping precinct with a small group of other young men with whom he
was at school. His offences have all followed a similar pattern; the group has become rowdy after
drinking cans of lager and when challenged by members of the public, they have become abusive,
prompting the shopkeeper to call the police. Vincent tells the report author that he knows his
behaviour is stupid, but that he feels unable to refuse to go out when his friends come calling for
him. His parents, who accompanied him to court, confirm this and state that he has never
Page 24
presented any major problems at home. They would be happy for him to spend his evenings at
home under the conditions imposed by a Curfew Requirement.
The report considers that if Vincent is able to break his habit of hanging around aimlessly with this
particular group of acquaintances, he is unlikely to offend again.
Proposal = Community Order with one Requirement:

- Curfew (electronically monitored) = 5pm – 5am, every day for 2 months
• Model Combination 1 ‘Short Restriction’
10. Peter Little

• Current offence – burglary of dwelling house
• The householders were not present, Peter was arrested at the scene and the stolen goods,
worth £200, were recovered
1999 (aged 23) Theft x 3 + Criminal Damage Fine £100 + Compensation
2002 (aged 26) Theft x 2 + Common Assault CRO 12 months
2002 (aged 26) Theft x 3 Fine £100 + Compensation
2003 (aged 27) Theft x 4 Imprisonment 2 months
The Court adjourns for a Standard Delivery PSR. The initial indication of seriousness is that the
offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. The stated purposes of sentencing
are punishment and rehabilitation.
The PSR states that Peter has maintained his own tenancy for the past four months, with help from
the supported housing worker. He is a drug user, using £80 worth of heroin and crack cocaine
daily. Five months ago he voluntarily sought help from his local drug agency, who have helped with
housing, and he has commenced treatment for his dependency. The offence pre-dates his contact
with the drug agency. He has undertaken a Community Care Assessment which indicates that he
is suitable and eligible for residential rehabilitation after a period of detoxification in hospital. He is
booked in for a detox programme in 4 weeks time, and the care plan is for him to go straight from
there to The Ashes, a residential drug project. The PSR author acknowledges the seriousness of
the offence, but proposes a 2-month deferment to allow the outcome of the Community Care Plan
to be assessed.
Proposal = Deferred sentence for 2 months with the following requirements:

- To co-operate with the Responsible Officer (the PSR author)
- To undergo detoxification
- To enter and comply with residential rehabilitation at The Ashes
The Court agrees to the deferment and states that the sentence had they not deferred would have
been 9 months imprisonment and that that will be the sentence if Peter does not comply with the
requirements; however if he does comply, they will consider a Community Order.
Note: An alternative proposal for this case would be
• Model Combination 8 ‘Medium Treatment’ or 9 ‘Intensive Treatment’
as part of a Suspended Sentence Order, and including a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement.
See Section 3.6 for further discussion.

11. Victoria Caxton

• Current offence = obtaining £300 by deception
• No previous convictions
• The Court indicates that the offence is at the low level of seriousness within the community
sentence band, and adjourns for a Fast delivery PSR.
The PSR reveals that Victoria had been running a one-woman business selling health products
from home. This had run into difficulties, and in attempt to keep it afloat, she had given false details
to obtain a bank loan. The business has ceased trading, with large debts. She is in the process of
selling her house; with the proceeds she intends to repay her creditors, including the bank against
whom she offended. She will then go and live with her elderly parents.

- To repay the money which was defrauded
The Court agrees to defer sentence for 3 months, and states that if the money is repaid they will
then consider dealing with her by way of a fine instead of the Community Order which they were
originally considering.
• Model Combination 5 ‘Practical Help’ consisting of a single Supervision Requirement

with referral for debt counselling.
12. James Park

• Current offence = Drunk and Disorderly (4th offence in last 2 months)
• Previous convictions = numerous offences of Drunk and Disorderly, routinely been dealt
with by the imposition of one day in custody
• Court requests Fast Delivery PSR.
James has a long-standing drink problem. Following the report the Court agrees to defer sentence
for 4 months, subject to the requirements that he does not offend, refers himself to the local alcohol
advisory service, and co-operates with the report author.

- To refer himself to the local alcohol advisory service and co-operate with any help
offered
The Court indicates that, due to his persistent offending, a Community Order had been considered,
but that if James complies with the requirements of the deferment, a discharge will be the outcome.
• Model Combination 6 ‘Short Treatment’ consisting of a single Alcohol Treatment

Requirement.
Page 26
13. Anne Gates

• Current offence = Criminal damage value £100
1989 (aged 19 years) Theft from shop Conditional Discharge
2003 (aged 33 years) Summary motoring offences Fined
• Court indicates offence of low seriousness within community sentence band, and requests
Fast Delivery PSR, stating that sentence should meet the purpose of punishment
The offence involved breaking a pane of glass in a bus shelter after drinking heavily during a
friend’s ‘hen night’. Anne appears very remorseful and insists that this was an incident that was
totally out of character. She is keen to pay compensation for the damage caused.
Anne is a single parent with children aged 10 years and 8 years. She has a full time job as an
administrator with a major supermarket chain. She does have some disposable income, but
spends most of her money on maintaining her home. She rarely goes out socially, preferring to
spend her leisure time at home with her children.
The report author concludes that there is no pattern of offending or anti-social behaviour that
needs to be disrupted by a curfew, exclusion or prohibited activity. She considers the option of
Unpaid Work, but has concerns that even a short Requirement would have an undesirable impact
on Anne’s children, by depriving them of family time with their mother. She argues that a fine,
together with compensation, would constitute a punishment commensurate with the seriousness of
the offence, by depriving her of a substantial part of her limited disposable income; furthermore this
punishment would be delivered at no cost to the taxpayer.
Proposal = Fine and Compensation

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Example PSR wordings
1.5 Example wording of PSR proposals for the model combinations

of Requirements
a) This section provides a suggested (but non-prescriptive) form of words for a proposal for a
typical example of each of the twelve model combinations of Requirements, and for cases at
the community sentence and custody thresholds. Report writers will need to be aware that
additional, or alternative “optional” Requirements may be available to customise some
combinations to the individual circumstances of the offender. A summary of the purposes of
each Requirement can be found in Table 1 (Section 1.2).
b) The Act introduces twelve different Requirements for Community Orders and Suspended
Sentence Orders, with numerous different permutations in combining them. Before making an
order the court will need to be clear as to the purpose(s) of the precise combination of
Requirements proposed, and the contribution each component is intended to make to that
purpose. Proposals in PSRs will need to be carefully drafted to achieve a high standard of
clarity.
c) Although similar combinations of Requirements are available for the Suspended Sentence
Order (Custody Minus) these examples assume that the proposal in the PSR is for a
Community Order (unless otherwise stated).
d) The examples given by the Sentencing Guidelines Council of specific ranges in the length of
Requirements for particular levels of seriousness, allows PSR writers to propose these
specific lengths (e.g. 80 – 150 hours Unpaid Work) as illustrated below.
Report writers should make NO reference in the wording of their sentence proposals to
model combinations or set packages of Requirements. Instead they should itemise the
specific pieces of work to be undertaken and interventions to be used with the offender,
and list the Requirements and their respective lengths necessary to deliver them.
1.5.1 Option 1 – Restriction

The example given here is for the use of a Curfew Requirement, and based on case example
No. 9 Vincent Tufton from Section 1.4.
“Having taken account of the Court’s indications of the seriousness of the offence and their
intended purpose of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Mr Tufton’s individual and
home circumstances, I would suggest that a the restriction on liberty represented by a short period
on curfew would provide a degree of punishment commensurate with the seriousness of his
offending. I therefore propose that the Court deals with Mr Tufton by imposing a Community Order
with the following single requirement:
To be the subject of a Curfew requiring him to remain at his home address between the
hours of 5 p.m. and 5 a.m. each day for a period of two months.
The Court may well be minded to order that this requirement be supported by electronic
monitoring. To this end, I have ascertained that Mr Tufton’s address is suitable for the necessary
equipment to be installed, and that a Curfew Requirement as proposed would not have any
adverse effect on other members of the household.”
Page 28
1.5.2 Option 2 – Attendance Centre

“Having taken account of the Court’s indications of the seriousness of the offence(s) and their
intended purpose of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Mr X’s individual circumstances, I
am satisfied that a complex intervention is not required in this case. I therefore propose that the Court
deals with Mr X by imposing a Community Order with the following single requirement:
To attend the Attendance Centre at [state location] for a period of 24 hours and to comply
with the instructions of the Responsible Officer.
The Officer in Charge informs me that Mr X will be required to attend the Centre between the hours
of 2 p.m. and 5 p.m. on eight alternate Saturdays in order to complete the proposed Requirement.
This will punish him by preventing him from using his leisure time in a way he would choose were he
free to do so, and will have the additional benefit of requiring him to develop the self-discipline
necessary to comply with a structured regime.”
1.5.3 Option 3 – Unpaid Work

intended purpose of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Ms X’s individual
circumstances, I consider that to require her to perform unpaid work for the benefit of the
community, for a period of between 80 and 150 hours would represent a punishment
commensurate with the seriousness of her offending. Such a disposal would also provide some
degree of reparation to the local community, with the added rehabilitative benefit of placing Ms. X
in an environment where she would be required to maintain a working routine. I therefore propose
that the Court deals with Ms X by imposing a Community Order with the following single requirement:
To perform [eg] 80-150 hours of Unpaid Work as directed by the Responsible Officer.”
Note: This example relates to the medium level of seriousness. The number of hours
proposed for low seriousness would be 40 – 80, and 150 – 300 for high seriousness.
1.5.4 Option 4 – Unpaid Work with Basic Skills and Education

intended purposes of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Mr X’s individual
circumstances, I consider that to require him to perform unpaid work for the community, for a
period commensurate with the seriousness of his offending, would represent appropriate
punishment for the offence(s). This would also provide some degree of reparation to the local
community, with the added rehabilitative benefit of placing Mr X in an environment where he will be
required to maintain a working routine and hopefully develop employment-related skills.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the likelihood of future offending would be reduced were Mr X
to improve his level of basic skills, thus enhancing his prospects of securing gainful employment.
The Court may consider it appropriate to include this activity in its disposal and to reduce the
number of hours of Unpaid Work accordingly. I therefore propose that the Court deals with Mr X by
imposing a Community Order with the following requirements:
1. To perform 80 – 150 hours of Unpaid Work as directed by the Responsible Officer
2. To undertake a basic skills assessment and any remedial work arising from that
assessment, as directed by the Responsible Officer, for 30 days.”
Note: This example relates to the medium level of seriousness. The number of hours
proposed for high seriousness would be 150 – 300.

1.5.5 Option 5 – Practical Support

“Having taken account of the Court’s indications of the seriousness of the offence(s) and the
intended purposes of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Ms X’s individual
circumstances, I am satisfied that her likelihood of reoffending will be significantly reduced if she
realises her wish to obtain more suitable accommodation away from the neighbourhood in which
she currently resides. Happy Homes Housing, a specialist accommodation provider which works in
partnership with the Probation Service, has indicated that Ms X would be a suitable candidate for
its Resettlement Project, a structured 12 week intervention which will aim to identify and secure a
suitable tenancy, equip Ms X with the necessary skills for independent living, and assist her to
settle into her new home. If the Court agrees that it would be appropriate to sentence her in such a
way that allows her to participate in this Project, I suggest that this would best be achieved within
the framework of a Supervision Requirement, which will ensure that an Offender Manager is
available to motivate Ms X, monitor her progress, and provide continuing support following the
completion of the Project. I therefore propose that Ms X be made the subject of a Community
Order with the following single requirement:
A Supervision Requirement for a period of 9 months.”
1.5.6 Option 6 – Short Treatment

The example here is for a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement.
“I have taken account of the Court’s indications of the seriousness of the offending and their
intended purposes of sentencing. In the light of my assessment of Mr X’s individual circumstances,
it is clear that although he is not at present a serious offender, the likelihood of further offending will
only reduce once Mr X’s dependency on heroin has diminished. In my opinion, this will best be
achieved by his participation in a structured period of counselling undertaken by the local Drug
Advice Centre, supported by drug testing arranged by the Offender Manager (twice weekly in the
first 16 weeks). I therefore propose that Mr X be made the subject of a Community Order with the
following single requirement:
A Drug Rehabilitation Requirement for a period of 6 months.”
1.5.7 Option 7 – Medium Personal Change

intended purposes of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Mr X’s individual
circumstances, I consider that the most effective means of dealing with this case would involve a
structured intervention designed to effect a lasting change in the way Mr X thinks and behaves.
This would centre around the Think First programme, consisting of 22 half-day groupwork
sessions, with a Supervision Requirement to support attendance on the programme, and provide
help with practical issues to support changes in lifestyle and behaviour to avoid further offending.
Research evidence indicates that such an intervention is likely to reduce significantly the likelihood
of further reoffending. This would also be an intrusive intervention and would restrict Mr X’s liberty
to an extent which the Court may consider to be commensurate with the seriousness of his
offending. My proposal is therefore for Mr X to be made the subject of a Community Order with
the following requirements:
1. A Supervision Requirement for a period of 12 months
2. A Requirement to complete the Think First Programme at the Brookside Probation

Centre, as directed by the Responsible Officer.”
Page 30
1.5.8 Option 8 – Medium Treatment

intended purposes of sentencing. In the light of my assessment of Ms X’s individual circumstances,
it is clear that her offending is inextricably linked to her felt need to support her heroin addiction,
and that the likelihood of further offending will only diminish if that addiction is addressed. I believe
that this will best be achieved by her participation in an intensive, structured intervention that will
include both specialised treatment, and monitoring of her drug use by testing, within an overall
framework of Probation supervision. The treatment will be supported by attendance at an
accredited substance misuse programme, and will include relapse prevention groupwork,
relaxation therapies such as acupuncture, structured leisure activities such as yoga, and drug
testing (twice weekly in the first 16 weeks). My proposal is therefore for Ms X to be made the
subject of a Community Order with the following requirements:
1. A Drug Rehabilitation Requirement for a period of 12 months
3. A Requirement to complete the ASRO (Addressing Substance Related Offending)

Programme at the Brookside Probation Centre, as directed by the Responsible Officer.
(This Order will be similar to a DTTO and the level of contact overall will be at least 8 hours per
week for the first 16 weeks).”
1.5.9 Option 9 – Long Personal Change

intended purposes of sentencing, and in the light of my assessment of Ms X’s individual
circumstances, I consider that the most effective means of dealing with this case would involve a
structured intervention designed to effect a lasting change in the way Ms X thinks and behaves.
This would centre around the Think First programme, consisting of 22 half-day groupwork
sessions, with a Supervision Requirement to support attendance on the programme, and provide
help with practical issues to support changes in lifestyle and behaviour to avoid further offending.
Research evidence indicates that such an intervention is likely to reduce significantly the likelihood
of further reoffending.
This would also be an intrusive intervention and would offer a significant degree of restriction of
liberty. However I am aware that these are serious offences and that the Court is likely to wish to
reflect this by way of additional punishment. This might properly be achieved by requiring Ms X to
perform between 80 and 150 (not 100 as in previous edition) hours of unpaid work, a requirement
which would also offer some reparation to the local community, with the additional rehabilitative
benefit of placing Ms X in an environment where she would be required to maintain a working
routine and also hopefully develop latent employment-related skills. My proposal is therefore for Ms
X to be made the subject of a Community Order with the following requirements:

Centre, as directed by the Responsible Officer
6. A Requirement to perform 80 – 150 (not 100 as in previous edition) hours of Unpaid

Work as directed by the Responsible Officer.”

1.5.10 Option 10 – Intensive Treatment

intended purposes of sentencing. In the light of my assessment of Mr X’s individual circumstances,
it is clear that his offending is entirely driven by his felt need to support his chronic heroin addiction.
The likelihood of further offending will only diminish if that addiction is successfully addressed. I
consider that this can only be achieved by his participation in a lengthy, intensive and structured
intervention that will include a period of residential treatment as well as continuing monitoring of his
drug use by testing, within an overall framework of Probation supervision. The treatment will be
supported by attendance at an accredited substance misuse programme, and include relapse
prevention groupwork, relaxation therapies such as acupuncture, and structured leisure activities
such as yoga. My proposal is therefore for Mr X to be made the subject of a Community Order
with the following requirements:
3. A Requirement to complete the ASRO (Addressing Substance Related Offending)

Programme at the Brookside Probation Centre, as directed by the Responsible Officer
(This Order will be similar to a DTTO and the level of contact overall will be at least 15 hours per
week for the first 16 weeks).”
1.5.11 Option 11 – Unpaid Work plus Curfew

“I have taken account of the Court’s indications of the seriousness of the offence and their intended
purposes of sentencing. It is clear that that this was a very serious offence for which a custodial
sentence was considered, and which must be marked by a significant degree of punishment.
However, my assessment strongly indicates that the likelihood of reoffending is low, and that that
Mr X does not need support from this Service in maintaining an offence-free lifestyle in the future.
Under these unusual circumstances, I would suggest that the seriousness of the offence could be
reflected in the imposition of a community sentence offering an uncommonly high degree of
restriction of liberty. My proposal would therefore be for the Court to impose a Community Order
with the following requirements:
1. A Requirement to perform 250 hours of Unpaid Work as directed by the Responsible

Officer
2. To be the subject of a Curfew requiring him to remain at his home address between the
hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. each day for a period of six months.
The Court may well be minded to order that this requirement be supported by electronic
monitoring. To this end, I have ascertained that Mr X’s address is suitable for the necessary
equipment to be installed, and that a Curfew Requirement as proposed would not have any
adverse effect on other members of the household.”
In ICCP pilot areas where the case falls within the former ICCP group, it may be helpful to
note:
“The proposed Order is similar to the previous ICCP package”.
Page 32
1.5.12 Option 12 – Intensive Control

intended purposes of sentencing, and have made an assessment of Ms X’s individual
circumstances. It is clear that she is developing a pattern of offending and that the likelihood of
reoffending is high. I consider that this likelihood will be most effectively reduced if the factors
underlying Ms X’s offending are addressed as part of an intensive, structured intervention designed
to first control her behaviour while working toward longer term change. Such an intervention would
include close supervision, with an expectation of four weekly contacts; an electronically monitored
curfew; participation in the Think First programme consisting of 22 half day sessions of groupwork;
unpaid work for the benefit of the community; and work to improve her basic skills and thus
improve her employment prospects. As well as the reparative and rehabilitative benefits of this
intervention, it would represent a significant degree of restriction of liberty, which the Court may
consider to be commensurate with the seriousness of Ms X’s offences. My proposal therefore is for
Ms. X to be made the subject of a Community Order consisting of the following requirements:
1. A Supervision Requirement for a period of two years
2. A Requirement to complete the Think First Programme at Brookside Probation Centre,

as directed by the Responsible Officer
3. A Requirement to perform 50 hours of Unpaid Work as directed by the Responsible

Officer
4. An Activity Requirement, specifically to undertake a basic skills assessment and any

remedial work arising from that assessment, as directed by the Responsible Officer, for
60 days
5. An electronically monitored Curfew Requirement, to remain at her home address every

day between 7p.m and 7a.m, for a period of 90 days.
I have ascertained that Mr X’s address is suitable for the necessary equipment to be installed, and
that a Curfew Requirement as proposed would not have any adverse effect on other members of
the household.”
Where the case is a Prolific or Other Priority Offender add:

“The Order will be managed within the local protocols for information sharing with the Police, and
arrangements for surveillance.”
In ICCP pilot areas where the case falls within the former ICCP group, it may be helpful to
note:
“The proposed Order is similar to the previous ICCP package”.
1.5.13 Proposing a Suspended Sentence Order as an alternative to

immediate custody (Options 7 and 12)
This PSR proposal is based on case example No. 5 Wayne Page from Section 1.4, where it
assumed that the precise details and seriousness of the case make a custodial sentence
inevitable.
“I have taken account of the Court’s indications of seriousness and their intended purposes of
sentencing. Mr Page appreciates that despite his age, the frequency and seriousness of his
offending make a custodial sentence inevitable. However, while this would be an immediate
punishment for Mr Page, it would do little to reduce the likelihood that he will offend again in the
future, and therefore little to prevent the distress and victimisation that would be caused.

If the Court holds the view that while a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, there may be
reasons why such a sentence might be suspended, then it might consider it appropriate to suspend
the sentence for one year and impose a Suspended Sentence Order comprising the following two
requirements:

These requirements would allow the poor decision-making apparent in Mr. Page’s behaviour to be
addressed; Mr Page has not previously attended an offending behaviour programme. The
restriction on liberty commensurate with the seriousness of his offending would be provided by the
period of custody which the Court would suspend. Mr Page has indicated his willingness to comply
with such an order and is well aware of the likely outcome of imprisonment should he fail to do so.”
Note: There is a real risk that offenders subject to Suspended Sentence Orders will breach
the Requirements and be sentenced to custody. While this is preferable to an immediate
custodial sentence, it is highly undesirable if the case might actually have been dealt with
by a Community Order. The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline on Seriousness
(Sections 1.30 – 36) indicates that a Community Order may still be appropriate even where
the seriousness of the offending is above the custody threshold. In most instances where
the court is considering a custodial sentence a proposal for a Suspended Sentence Order
should therefore be accompanied by the alternative suggestion of a Community Order with
more onerous Requirements, a set out in the following model wording.
1.5.14 Proposing a Community Order as an alternative to a Suspended

Sentence Order (Options 7 and 12)
This PSR proposal is also based on case example No. 5 Wayne Page from Section 1.4,
where it assumed that the precise details and seriousness of the case might permit a non
custodial sentence.
“I have taken account of the Court’s indications of seriousness and their intended purposes of
sentencing. If the Court holds the view that a custodial sentence cannot be avoided, but sees
reasons why such a sentence might be suspended, then it may consider it appropriate to suspend
the sentence for one year and impose a Suspended Sentence Order comprising the following two
requirements:

These requirements would allow the poor decision-making apparent in Mr. Page’s behaviour to be
addressed, while restriction on liberty commensurate with the seriousness of his offending would
be provided by the period of custody which the Court would suspend.
Alternatively, the Court could take the view that instead of imposing a Suspended Sentence
Order, it might be appropriate to impose an onerous and restrictive Community Order which
would carry a significant punitive weight while allowing more work to be undertaken which would
reduce his likelihood of reoffending. In particular, as well as improving his decision-making skills,
such work would seek to address his heroin use by counselling, the prescribing of alternative
reducing medication, and testing to monitor compliance. Support would also be provided to
Page 34
improve his literacy and numeracy skills, thereby enhancing his future employment prospects; and
to secure a long-term tenancy with the local housing department, along with entitlement to benefits,
after first achieving some stability in the local voluntary hostel.
My preferred proposal is therefore a Community Order consisting of the following five

requirements:
1. A Supervision Requirement for a period of 2 years

Centre, as directed by the Responsible Officer
4. An Activity Requirement for 60 days, specifically to undertake a basic skills

assessment and any remedial work arising from that assessment
5. A Residence Requirement, specifically to reside in the Local Voluntary Hostel for a

period of 6 months
Mr Page has indicated his willingness to comply with such an order and is well aware of the
powers available to the Court should he fail to do so.”
Note that in the more intensive Community Order option a longer period of Supervision is
proposed.
1.5.15 Proposing a fine as an alternative to a Community Order for a low

seriousness offence (Options 1, 2 and 3)
The example given here is based on case example No. 13 Anne Gates from Section 1.4.
“I have taken account of the Court’s indication of the seriousness of this offence and the fact that
they intend their sentence to punish Ms Gates. Although I am aware that the offence is considered
serious enough to merit a community sentence, the Court may consider in the light of their
knowledge of Ms Gates’ circumstances, that a financial penalty would represent a more severe
punishment than any proportionate community sentence. The imposition of a fine would avoid the
additional pressures which completing a Community Order might place upon Ms Gates care for her
children, and mean that she (and she alone) would pay the penalty for her behaviour.”

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Details of the Requirements
2 Details of the Requirements
a) The twelve Requirements together with brief details are given in Table 1 below (repeated
from Section 1.1). Full details of the Requirements are set out below.
b) The Requirements for Orders set out within the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are the same in
whichever type of Order they are used (all twelve available for Community or Suspended
Sentence Order; a limited range of the same Requirements is available for Intermittent Custody).
Standalone Drug Testing is not available in the Community and Suspended Sentence Orders.
c) Requirements can be combined to produce an individual Order for each offender, subject to
the different Requirements ordered being compatible, and resulting overall restriction on
liberty or punitive content being commensurate with the seriousness of the offending. This is
defined by the seriousness of the current offence(s) and the pattern and nature of those
previous convictions which the court may legitimately take into account. The court must also
ensure as far as practicable that any Requirements imposed do not interfere with the
offender’s religious beliefs or times of work and education (§217).
d) All Requirements start from the sentence date, but implementation may be deferred within
National Standards (e.g. an offending behaviour programme might start immediately after
sentence or be deferred until specific barriers to attendance have been removed). For
multiple Requirement Orders the court can specify a shorter completion time for one
Requirement than another, but otherwise all Requirements are considered to terminate at the
end of the Order (see Section 5.2).
e) Separate Requirements should be used to deliver each component of an Order. For

example, work on Employment, Training and Education should be delivered through a
separate Activity Requirement, and an accredited substance misuse programme should be
delivered through a Programme Requirement (and not within a parallel Alcohol Treatment or
Drug Rehabilitation Requirement). This ensures that:
• the offender is clear about the expectations placed upon him/her
• the use of specific resources is recorded and the demand for such provision can be
monitored.
f) The exception to this is that a small amount of skills assessment or learning may be
undertaken within an Unpaid Work Requirement within the 20% limit set by National
Standards.
g) For each Requirement the following details are given:

• NPD’s interpretation of the main purposes in terms of the purpose(s) of sentencing as set
out in the Act §142 (see Section 4.3 on purposes of sentencing)
• The Levels of Seriousness of offending for which the Requirement may be used (see
Section 4.2). Where different lengths for the Requirement are indicated against different
Levels of Seriousness, these are based on the Sentencing Guidelines Council
Sentencing Guidelines where given
• Units of length
• Any information the court should consider before making the Requirement.
followed by further details.

Table 1 Criminal Justice Act 2003 – Requirements

Requirement Level of Length Report Main
Seriousness Purpose(s) **
Unpaid work Low 40 – 80 hours * ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

Medium 80 – 150 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’ reparation
rehabilitation
High 150 – 300 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’
Supervision Low up to 12 months ‘Fast Delivery’ rehabilitation
Medium 12 – 18 months ‘Standard’
Programme (Accredited) Medium stated number depends on rehabilitation
(or range) of programme
High
sessions
Drug rehabilitation Low 6 months • see footnote rehabilitation
Alcohol treatment Low 6 months • see footnote rehabilitation
Mental health treatment Medium up to 36 months ‘Standard’ rehabilitation
Offender must consent High
Residence Medium up to 36 months ‘Standard’ rehabilitation
High protection
(specified) Activity Medium 20 – 30 days* ‘Fast Delivery’ rehabilitation

High up to 60 days* reparation
Prohibited Activity Low up to 24 / 36 ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

months for protection
Medium
SSO / CO
High
Exclusion Low up to 2 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
Medium up to6 months* protection
High up to 12 months*
Curfew Low up to 2 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
typically up to 12 hours / day Medium 2 – 3 months* ‘Fast Delivery’ protection
High 4 – 6 months* ‘Fast Delivery’
Attendance Centre Low 12 – 36 hours ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment
NOTES Full details are set out in Section 2
* Length = in line with Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines.
Report = the minimum level of Report which should be used when proposing the Requirement (but the
court may be able to make the Requirement without considering such a Report – see Section 2).
● A ‘Fast Delivery’ Report may be sufficient where a current treatment plan is already available.
** Purpose = indicates NPD’s interpretation of the main purpose of the Requirement. All Requirements are
presumed to meet the purpose of the reduction of crime, either through rehabilitation, or by deterrence
through their punitive impact. See Section 4.3.
Page 38
The Requirements in Detail

All Orders must be allocated to an Offender Manager except where there is a single
Requirement which is either an electronically monitored Curfew or Exclusion, or Attendance
Centre. Full details are given in Section 5.1.
2.1 Unpaid Work Requirement (§199)
Main purposes: Punishment + Reparation + Rehabilitation (See Section 4.3)

SGC seriousness levels: Low = 40 – 80 hours
Medium = 80 – 150 hours
High = 150 – 300 hours
Expressed in hours between 40 – 300
Report not mandatory but court must be satisfied the offender is suitable
2.1.1 The Requirement must be completed within 1 year (§200) unless extended on amendment
by the court on the application of the Responsible Officer or the offender (Sch 8 para 20 &
Sch 12 para 18). See Section 5.2 for more information about completion periods.
2.1.2 For multiple offences dealt with on the same occasion, the hours can be concurrent, or
consecutive subject to a maximum of 300 hours (§199) i.e. if passing two sentences to run
consecutively or concurrently, a court could not impose 160 hours of Unpaid Work for each
sentence as when combined the total number of hours would exceed 300. The increase in
the maximum number of hours brings England & Wales in line with existing legislation in
Scotland.
2.1.3 Because courts will no longer have the option to take no action in the event of a breach of a
Community or Suspended Sentence Order, one course of action will be the imposition of
hours of Unpaid Work. Where this is an extension of an existing Unpaid Work Requirement
then there is no minimum number of hours which may be added, but the total on aggregate
must not exceed 300 hours. This option would not therefore be available where 300 hours
were ordered at the time of sentence, even if some have been worked subsequently. To
retain the option of dealing with breaches by the addition of extra hours, Requirements for
300 hours should normally be avoided in all but the most serious of cases (e.g. those which
are clearly above the custody threshold). Where no Unpaid Work Requirement is in
existence, the court can add one in the event of breach, but this would be subject to the
same 40 hours minimum as at the time of sentence.
In the new sentencing framework Community Punishment becomes Unpaid Work.
2.1.4 Unpaid Work Requirements will normally be referred to as Unpaid Work by the court (since
this is the terminology used in the Act). Probation Circular 59/2004 indicates that a full
OASys assessment should be prepared and elements of the Enhanced CP scheme will
continue to be delivered to offenders who have a medium or high likelihood of reconviction
(OGRS 41 and over). However for those offenders who have a low likelihood of
reconviction and have committed offences of low seriousness, Areas are not required to
deliver the rehabilitative elements of the ECP scheme. Therefore, in making a proposal for
a Requirement report writers should use the term Unpaid Work and not ECP.
2.1.5 At present Guided Skills Learning (where delivered) takes place within the ordered hours
since most of the learning occurs in the course of actually carrying out the work. Additional
non-work activities are undertaken within the 20% allowance in National Standards for such

activities. It is suggested that a small amount of skills related activity could continue to be
dealt with in this way, such as Basic Skills assessments. However, where any significant
amount of skills learning is necessary (that is, identified as a contributory factor to offending
in cases where more serious offences have been committed), it is recommended that an
Activity Requirement should be included in the Order, to permit the offender to undertake
up to 60 days of assessment and training in ETE (Employment, Training and Education),
with related support and advice. To ensure that the Order remains commensurate with the
seriousness of the offending, the number of hours of Unpaid Work proposed should be
adjusted to reflect the length of the Activity Requirement, which should be outlined within
the Pre Sentence Report.
2.2 Supervision Requirement (s213)
Main purpose: Rehabilitation (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness levels: Low = up to 12 months
Medium = 12 – 18 months
High = 12 – 36 months (max 24 months for SSO)
Expressed in months or years, and if included in an Order is always the same as the
relevant period for the Order. That is:
♦ Community Order = the length of the Order (max 36 months)
♦ Suspended Sentence Order = the Supervision Period (max 24 months)
♦ Intermittent Custody = the licence period.
For Community Orders the Court must set the length of this Requirement which must be
equal to the length of the Order and at least that of any other Requirement imposed.
Report not mandatory, but in many cases a Pre Sentence Report will be necessary to
establish a clear expectation between the court and the offender about what work is to
be undertaken and what this will involve, and to inform the Sentence Plan.
2.2.1 To enable the court to have regard to the overall restriction on liberty the Probation Service
should indicate the frequency of contact in line with National Standards. The content of
Supervision and frequency of contact should be specified in the Sentence Plan.
2.2.2 Supervision is defined in the Act as attending appointments with the Responsible Officer (i.e.
Offender Manager), or another person determined by the Responsible Officer, to promote the
offender’s rehabilitation. The purpose is beyond contact required simply to monitor and
manage compliance with any other Requirements which may be imposed, which is defined
separately in the Act as the duty of the offender to keep in touch with the Responsible Officer
(§220) (see Section 2.13 below).
2.2.3 Typically Supervision can involve contact to:

• undertake work to promote personal and behavioural change
• monitor and review patterns of behaviour and personal activity
• undertake work to increase motivation and provide practical support to increase
compliance with other Requirements
• deliver pre and post programme work for accredited and other programmes
• support and reinforce learning being undertaken as part of a Programme or Activity
Requirement
• deliver individual counselling
Page 40
• form and maintain working alliances to help support the offender through other
Requirements in the Order
• model pro-social (i.e. good) behaviour.
2.2.4 While normally the supervision contact would be individual, the Act does not preclude
carrying out these activities within groups if this is considered to be appropriate and the risks
have been assessed.
2.2.5 It is recommended and considered important that a Supervision Requirement is included in

Orders containing certain other Requirements to provide supporting and reinforcing work in
conjunction with those Requirements as indicated above. Further details are given in
Sections 1.3 and 5.1. Orders with a single Supervision Requirement may also be used in low
seriousness cases to provide a basic level of support and referral to other agencies for
assistance with practical or personal problems related to the persons offending.
2.2.6 As indicated above, contact within a Supervision Requirement can be delegated by the
Offender Manager to another person, and this arrangement might be used to provide the
offender with specialised support or advice, for example in relation to assistance to find more
suitable accommodation. In this way the Requirement can be used to address particular
issues which may arise after sentence without amendment of the Order to include an Activity
Requirement. If a decision is taken to delegate the Supervision Requirement, consideration
should also be given to how the Offender Manager will monitor the enforcement of the
Requirement. However, where issues are identified prior to sentence which will require a
significant input of a specialised service or support this should be delivered through an
Activity Requirement included in the order in addition to the Supervision Requirement (see
Section 2.8 below). The general principle of the Act is that specific interventions should be
itemised within the Order and delivered within appropriate and separate Requirements.
2.2.7 For Community Orders the Court must set the length of a Supervision Requirement to be at
least that of any other Requirement imposed, that is, to be the overall period for which the
Order is in force. For Suspended Sentence Orders, the Supervision Requirement operates
for the same time as the Supervision Period. This automatically ensures that Supervision will
be available to provide the functions indicated above throughout the duration of any other
Requirement (§213). However, in proposing the use of a Programme Requirement, the
Probation Service must ensure that the length of the Order and supporting Supervision
Requirement is long enough to extend beyond the likely completion date of the programme.
2.3 Programme Requirement (§202)

SGC seriousness levels: Medium – High
Normally expressed in terms of the number of sessions. Where possible the court should
be advised of the length and number of sessions per week and the overall duration (e.g.
two sessions of three hours per week for 11 weeks)
Should be combined with a Supervision Requirement to provide additional supporting
activities and reinforce learning. This should be long enough to extend beyond the likely
completion date of the programme.
Report is required to confirm that the programme is suitable for the offender
2.3.1 The programme must be accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel, and
the wording of Programme Requirements must specify:

♦ which programme (i.e. its title), so targeting to the correct programme must work well
(and if a mistake is made the Order should be amended to the correct programme)
It is not possible to use a generic or non-specific wording in relation to the
programme and then determine the actual programme post-sentence.
♦ and the venue, which must be approved by the local Probation Board
♦ the number of sessions may also be specified.
2.3.2 Some programmes have been accredited on the basis that specific pre and post programme
sessions form part of the overall design (e.g. Think First). The relevant programme manual
will state who should deliver each of these sessions and it will normally be a combination of
the Offender Manager and programme staff. In this case the pre and post programme
sessions are deemed to be part of the programme as it was designed. For other programmes
(e.g. Enhanced Thinking Skills) specific pre and post programme sessions are not set out in
the manual. However there is an expectation that work is undertaken with the offender in
order to prepare them for the programme and reinforce learning following the core sessions.
The Offender Manager and / or programme staff can undertake this work within a parallel
Supervision Requirement which should always be recommended in an Order with a
Programme Requirement.
2.3.3 Pre and post programme work is an integral part of the case supervision relationship and
continuing motivational work. In this context it should be seen as part of the normal content of
Supervision, and any failure to co-operate (e.g. continuing to attend for appointments but
refusing to engage in the work) would be deemed a breach of the Supervision Requirement.
Multiple Programme Requirements
2.3.4 These can be made by inserting a separate Requirement for each programme into the Order,
for example a Requirement for a general offending behaviour programme followed by an
offence-specific programme.
2.3.5 A second Programme Requirement should only be considered where it is merited by the
seriousness of the offence, the need to provide a suitable restriction on liberty, and by the
needs of the offender. Examples would be to use a substance abuse programme as support
to a domestic violence programme; or provide a general programme plus a cognitive skills
booster programme for a persistent offender.
Subsequent and Booster Programmes
2.3.6 The preferred approach to addressing needs or risks covered by more than one programme
will be for the Order to contain a Requirement for only the first or priority programme to be
undertaken. In the event that this is completed satisfactorily but the offender is subsequently
re-convicted, a second programme or Booster Programme can be included in the new Order.
Alternatively, the new Order might include a Requirement to undertake the first programme in
the event that it was not completed prior to the re-conviction, or the necessary learning was
not achieved.
2.3.7 After sentence, additional or extended Requirements can only be added following a breach of
the Order, so it is not possible to add a Booster Programme (or any other Requirement)
purely on the basis of need at a later date. The content of Booster Programmes does not fall
within the definition of Supervision.
Page 42
2.4 Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (§209)

Seriousness levels: Low 6 months [see note below]
Medium 6 – 12 months
High 12 – 36 months (max 24 months for SSO)
Expressed in months or years between 6 – 36 months (max 24 months for SSO)
Should normally be combined with a Supervision Requirement to support and reinforce
rehabilitation and provide additional support except at low seriousness – see note below at 2.4.4
Report is required to confirm:
♦ the offender is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse drugs, and that they
are susceptible to treatment
♦ arrangements have been or can be made for the treatment intended
♦ the Requirement is suitable for the offender
♦ the offender expresses willingness to comply with the Requirement.
2.4.1 Drug Rehabilitation Requirement includes testing, but the use of accredited substance
misuse programmes should be undertaken through a separate Programme Requirement.
2.4.2 Progress reviews by the court are:

♦ optional for Requirements up to 12 months
♦ optional, but should normally be ordered for Requirement of 12 months
♦ mandatory for Requirements over 12 months.
Further details are given in Section 5.6.
2.4.3 Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders replace the current Drug Treatment and
Testing Orders. The new sentencing framework permits a flexible range of interventions to be
delivered within those combinations of Requirements containing a Drug Rehabilitation
Requirement. It is proposed that all Orders containing a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement will
count as a DTTO for the purposes of performance planning and monitoring.
2.4.4 Cases at the low level of seriousness should normally be limited to Orders with a single Requirement.
Where a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement is necessary to address substance misuse then an
additional, supporting Supervision Requirement will not normally be proposed, and all the support
required by the offender will normally be provided through the single Drug Rehabilitation Requirement.
2.4.5 A full (Standard Delivery) Pre Sentence Report will normally be necessary for a Drug
Rehabilitation Requirement, but a short (Fast Delivery) report may be sufficient for a proposal
for a single Requirement for a low seriousness case where a current treatment plan is
already available.
2.5 Alcohol Treatment Requirement (§212)

Seriousness levels: Low 6 months [see note below]
Medium 6 – 12 months
High 12 – 36 months (max 24 months for SSO)


rehabilitation and provide additional support except at low seriousness – see note below
Report is not mandatory, but the court must be satisfied that:
♦ the offender is dependent on alcohol, and requires and may be susceptible to
treatment
2.5.1 The offender is required to submit to treatment by or under the direction of a specified person
having the necessary qualifications or experience with a view to the reduction or elimination
of the offender’s dependency on alcohol. Where attendance on an accredited substance
misuse or the Drink Impaired Drivers programme is necessary, this should be specified in a
separate Programme Requirement.
2.5.2 Cases at the low level of seriousness should normally be limited to Orders with a single
Requirement. Where an Alcohol Treatment Requirement is necessary then an additional,
supporting Supervision Requirement will not normally be proposed, and all the support
required by the offender will normally be provided through the single Alcohol Treatment
Requirement.
2.5.3 A full (Standard Delivery) Pre Sentence Report will normally be necessary for a Drug
Rehabilitation Requirement, but a short (Fast Delivery) report may be sufficient for a proposal
for a single Requirement for a low seriousness case where a current treatment plan is
already available.
2.6 Mental Health Treatment Requirement (§207)

Seriousness levels: Medium – High
rehabilitation and provide additional support, but see below
Report is not mandatory, but the court must be satisfied that:
♦ on the evidence of a registered medical practitioner the mental condition of the
offender is such as requires and may be susceptible to treatment, but does not
warrant the making of a hospital or guardianship order
2.6.1 The offender is required to submit to treatment by or under the direction of a medical
practitioner and / or a chartered psychologist with a view to the improvement of the offender’s
mental condition. Treatment may be as a resident patient of a care home or hospital (but not
in hospital premises where ‘high security’ psychiatric services are provided), a non – resident
Page 44
patient of such an institution, or under the direction of a medical practitioner and / or a

chartered psychologist.
2.6.2 Where the proposed treatment is residential then the offender must be informed of this prior
to being asked for their consent. With residential treatment a Supervision Requirement is not
necessary and the role of the Offender Manager should be limited to that of the Responsible
Officer. A separate Residence Requirement would not be necessary.
2.7 Residence Requirement (§206)
Main purposes: Rehabilitation + Protection (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness levels: Medium – High
Expressed in months or years up to 36 months (max 24 months for SSO)
rehabilitation and provide additional support – see note below
Report not mandatory but residence in a hostel or institution must be on the
recommendation of the Probation Service. The Court must consider the home
surroundings of the offender
Residence at an approved hostel automatically includes a supervised curfew
2.7.1 The Requirement is not available to court in Custody Plus, but can be inserted from existing
standard conditions at the time of release.
2.7.2 Residence can be at approved premises or a private address. Residence at an approved

hostel or other institution should be accompanied by a Supervision Requirement to ensure
support and contact after departure into next stage accommodation, unless contracts are
negotiated with accommodation providers to deliver this. However, this is not current practice
and would require specific funding (transferring costs from community supervision).
2.7.3 It is important to note the distinction between making a Requirement of Residence at the
offenders’ home, and the use of a Curfew. The former might be undertaken where the court
wishes to ensure that the offender lives at a specific location (or with certain other people)
and not at an alternative address which for some reason would be unsuitable. Currently such
Requirements are worded to specify that the offender will live and sleep at the address, but
such wording is not specified in the Act. This Requirement does not require the offender to be
at home at any particular time. If the concern of the court is primarily to confine the offender
to their residence at particular times, then a Curfew Requirement would be more appropriate.
2.7.4 The Order must specify the place of residence, but if so worded it may allow the offender to
reside at a place other than that specified in the Order, with the prior approval of the
Responsible Officer.
2.8 Activity Requirement (§201)
Main purposes: Rehabilitation + Reparation (See Section 4.3)

SGC seriousness levels: Medium 20 – 30 days
High up to 60 days
To be expressed in days, up to a maximum of 60. In proposals to courts length should be
expressed in days, but also giving details of the actual period and content of each

attendance (e.g. an Activity Requirement of 30 days, attending a basic skills assessment

and training programme at [venue] for three hours once a week). The Requirement could
be converted in to hours to estimate the overall restriction on liberty of the Order, but the
Requirement must be expressed in days in the Order
rehabilitation and provide additional support, and this should normally be long enough to
extend beyond the likely completion date of the activity. Alternatively it can be combined
with an Unpaid Work Requirement – see below
Report required to confirm feasibility of compliance.
2.8.1 An Activity Requirement cannot be made without the consent of any person whose co-
operation is necessary for the offender to comply with the Requirement. The consent of the
offender is not necessary.
2.8.2 In an Activity Requirement the offender must present themselves to a person or persons
specified at a place or places specified, and / or participate in activities specified, as
instructed by the Responsible Officer. The number of days may be specified, but must not
exceed 60. The wording of the Act requires attendance ‘on’ so many days, and not ‘for’ so
many days, so the length of the attendance can be whatever is appropriate, for example 1
hour, or 4 hours. Each attendance on a separate date will count as one ‘day’ for the purposes
of the number of days completed, but multiple attending on the same date will count as one
‘day’.
2.8.3 The number of days proposed and specified will need to be sufficient to meet the objectives
of the Sentence Plan, but not so great that there is a likelihood that the offender will not need
to undertake the full number of days, in which event the Order would have to be returned to
court for the Requirement to be deleted. Where the desired activity cannot be completed
within the number of days ordered the offender can of course continue the activity on a
voluntary basis.
2.8.4 While it is preferable for an exact number of days to be specified in the Order where possible,
an alternative option is for the Order to be worded ‘for up to xx days’ to give greater flexibility.
This practice was adopted in some Areas under previous legislation in relation to ‘additional
Requirements’ made under Schedule 2 of the PCCS Act 2000 (which replaced Schedule 1A
of the 1991 CJA). However the new Act implies that the courts should be more specific in
setting the details of Requirements, and if adopting this approach the number of days
specified should be estimated as closely as possible for each case and not always set at ‘up
to 60 days’.
2.8.5 In determining the length of Activity Requirement to be proposed, the ranges stated above in
relation to the seriousness level should be considered as the maximum where the
Requirement is making a significant contribution to the overall restriction on liberty provided
by the Order. Where the other Requirements with which the Activity Requirement is
combined have a substantial restriction on liberty commensurate with the level of seriousness
of the offending, then it may be necessary for the Activity Requirement to be shorter.
2.8.6 Where the amount of intervention necessary will be small then the contact required can be
provided alternatively through contact delegated by the Offender Manager under a
Supervision Requirement. This might be appropriate for dealing with issues which only come
to light after the Order has been made, for example, help with finding alternative
accommodation. However the general principle of the Act is that specific interventions should
be itemised within the Order and delivered within appropriate and separate Requirements.
2.8.7 An Activity Requirement sufficient to meet the objectives of the Sentence Plan will not
necessarily meet the full needs of the offender. In the case of Employment, Training and
Page 46
Education needs, even the full 60 days may be insufficient to do this, but ETE work is
intended as a process of assessment and engagement for offenders to enable them to work
towards longer term goals which may extend beyond the length of the Requirement and the
Order.
2.8.8 The places specified above (in paragraph 2.8.2) must be a community rehabilitation centre or
a place approved by the local probation board as providing suitable facilities for Activity
Requirements. Areas will need to ensure that their local board has formally approved in
advance all places where Activity Requirements may be undertaken. The offender can also
be required to attend and participate in activities elsewhere under the instruction or authority
of the person in charge of a community rehabilitation centre.
2.8.9 Activity Requirements can be used for a wide range of activities, from day centre type
activities to education, and reparation to victims or persons affected by the offending
(specifically mentioned in the Act). Their use allows participation in the specific activity to be
explicitly included in the Pre Sentence Report and Sentence Plan. It helps to ensure
offenders are clear about the expectations placed upon them, and the intentions of the court
can be clearly enforced. Potential activities include:
♦ Employment, Training and Education – e.g. provided through a local college
♦ Counselling in debt and financial management – e.g. provided through a local Citizens’
Advice Bureau
♦ Mediation between the offender and the victim or persons affected by the offending
2.8.10 Where the offender is to undertake two different types of activity then the Order should
contain two separate Activity Requirements, one for each activity.
2.8.11 Where a specialised assessment is required to determine the precise programme of work
to be undertaken by the offender, this can be provided and undertaken within the
arrangements for the delivery of the Activity Requirement.
2.8.12 Where the development of Employment, Training and Education interventions is identified
as being strongly linked to the prospects of reducing further offending, an Activity
Requirement should be included in the Order, to permit the offender to undertake
appropriate assessment and training, and receive related support and advice. It is
anticipated that a major use of Activity Requirements will be for the delivery of education
and basic skills assessment and training.
2.8.13 ETE work may be usefully coupled with an Unpaid Work Requirement where the main
purpose of the Order is punishment, as outlined in Section 2.1 on Unpaid Work above. In
this situation no further Requirement is automatically necessary, and the management of
the order will be undertaken through the normal arrangements for Orders with a single
Unpaid Work Requirement.
2.8.14 However an Activity Requirement should not normally be used by itself. In other situations it
should be used alongside a Supervision Requirement. Contact through the Supervision
Requirement will provide the necessary support and motivation to ensure the Activity is
completed, and provide follow-up and reinforcement work to maximise the benefits of the
activity, within the context of a broader programme of rehabilitation.
2.8.15 Where a period of mentoring (by a person other than the Offender Manager) is to form a
specific part of a complex rehabilitation package of intervention, as distinct from contact
under a Supervision Requirement which has a more general focus and runs throughout the
Order, an Activity Requirement could be used for this purpose.

2.8.16 The Act specifically mentions that an Activity Requirement may consist of or include activities
whose purpose is that of reparation, such as activities involving contact between offenders
and persons affected by their offences (including direct victims and other people as well). In
Areas where such programmes of activity are already in place, the Requirement can be used
in this way. However, Areas are not required at this stage to set up such arrangements where
none currently exist, and the nature of these activities necessitates a considerable degree of
professional expertise, and an investment in the support and training of practitioners. Areas
wishing to explore the use of Activity Requirements for this purpose should seek further
guidance from NOMS, and guidance will be issued to all Areas in the future.
2.9 Prohibited Activity Requirement (§203)
Main purposes: Punishment + Protection (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness levels: Low – Medium – High
To refrain from participating in any activity or activities on a day or days, or during a
period, as specified. The Act does not indicate a specific maximum period available for
this Requirement, so the maximum will be 2 years for a Suspended Sentence Order and
3 years for a Community Order
Where appropriate use should be recommended with a Supervision Requirement to
support and reinforce desired changes in behaviour
Report not mandatory but would clearly be advisable in cases where a significant risk of
harm is identified. The court must consult the Probation Service before making such a
Requirement.
2.9.1 A Prohibited Activity Requirement proscribes a particular behaviour in contrast to an

Exclusion Requirement which proscribes presence at a particular place. A Prohibited
Activity Requirement should therefore be used to prevent behaviour which could occur at a
wide range of places. It has the disadvantage that it may be harder to enforce because the
specified behaviour may be harder to define and / or detect. In contrast an Exclusion
Requirement may be easier to enforce because presence at a location can be more easily
defined and monitored.
2.9.2 Examples of situations where a Prohibited Activity Requirement might be used include:
♦ football related offending – prohibition from attending any football match
♦ drink related offending linked to pubs in general – prohibition from entering any
public house or licensed premises
♦ prohibition from association with named individual(s) (with whom the offender
might have committed offences)
♦ stalking or sex offending – prohibition from approaching or communicating with
(victim and / or family members) without the approval of the case manager (and /
or Local Authority Social Services Department)
♦ sex offender – prohibition from taking work or any other organised activity, which
will involve a person under the relevant age, either on a professional or voluntary
basis (alternatively the court may wish to make a Disqualification Order)
♦ sex offender – prohibition from approaching or communicating with any child
under the relevant age without the approval of the case manager (and / or Local
Authority Social Services Department)
♦ sex offender – prohibition from residing (or staying for even one night) in the
same household as any child under the relevant age.
Page 48
2.9.3 The examples given above imply the range of possible measures, particularly in relation to
inter-agency communication, which might be used to monitor compliance with the
prohibition. The Requirement should not be used to prohibit behaviour which is in any event
illegal, but can be used to provide additional public protection in support of preventing
further offending. For example, prohibition from attending any football match might only be
enforced in the breach, where the offender’s presence comes to attention of the police, but
it would allow action to be taken even if no other offence had been committed on that
occasion.
2.10 Exclusion Requirement (§205)
Main purposes Punishment + Protection (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness levels: Low up to 2 months
Medium about 6 months (SGC)
High about 12 months (SGC)
Exclusion from a place or area for a period specified up to 2 years. The Exclusion can be
limited to particular periods specified, and at different places for different periods or days
Where appropriate use should be recommended with a Supervision Requirement to
Must be electronically monitored unless this facility is not available or the court considers
it unnecessary
Report not mandatory but would clearly be advisable in cases where a significant risk of
harm is identified.
2.10.1 An Exclusion Requirement precludes the offender’s presence from a particular place or
area. If the Court’s intention is to prevent behaviour which could occur at a range of places
too wide to define or to determine in advance, a Prohibited Activity Requirement may give
more protection, but may be harder to monitor and enforce (see above).
2.10.2 Examples of situations where an Exclusion Requirement might be used include:

♦ football related offending related to particular venues – exclusion from named
football stadium
♦ drink related, public order or violent offences associated with particular public
house(s) – exclusion from named public houses
♦ Public Order offences committed in particular area of town – exclusion from that
area
♦ stalking – exclusion from area of victim’s home or workplace
♦ sex offender excluded from named swimming pool, leisure centre, playground
etc. or from (e.g.) a half mile radius of named schools
♦ burglary where a particular area or estate appears to have been targeted –
exclusion from that area
♦ persistent shop theft – exclusion from a named store or shopping area.
2.10.3 [NOTE:THIS PARAGRAPH (FORMERLY NUMBERED 16) IS AMENDED FROM ANNEX A

AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005] An Exclusion Requirement with electronic monitoring
(EM) is currently only available in those probation Areas in which satellite tracking is being
piloted. As required in the 2003 Act, the courts in these Areas have been formally notified
by the Home Office of the availability of EM to support exclusion. Exclusion without EM is
available in the other areas, but the Act is clear that exclusion should be imposed with EM
unless certain conditions are satisfied (s177(3)). The view of the Sentencing Guidelines

Council is that these exceptional cases should be those in which the offence is of LOW
seriousness, the sentencer is minded to impose a single Requirement, and the
circumstances of the case are such that an Exclusion Requirement without EM would be
suitable.
The position is slightly different for offences committed prior to 4 April 2005. The way the
previous legislation is framed means that for these cases:
• An Exclusion Order with EM can be made in the pilot areas but nowhere else:
• An Exclusion Order without EM cannot be made anywhere.
2.11 Curfew Requirement (§204)
Main purposes: Punishment + Protection (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness levels: Low up to 2 months
Medium 2 – 3 months (SGC)
High 4 – 6 months (SGC)
Expressed in hours between 2 – 12 in any one day, and limited to operate within 6
months of Order being made. The curfew can be at different places and / or for different
periods on different days
At a high level of seriousness, use is recommended with a Supervision Requirement to
Must be electronically monitored unless this facility is not available or the court considers
it unnecessary
Report not mandatory but court must consider information about the place of curfew,
including information about the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced
presence of the offender.
2.11.1 Standalone electronically monitored Curfews can be used as a simple punishment, as a

cost-effective alternative to other punitive Requirements such as Unpaid Work or
Attendance Centre. Curfews can also be used alongside a long Unpaid Work Requirement
in cases with a low level of offending related need and risk of harm, where the Level of
Seriousness is very high or above the custody threshold. Curfews can also be used as part
of a complex package of interventions in cases with high levels of offending related need
and / or risk of harm where the Level of Seriousness is very high or above the custody
threshold. See also PC23/2005.
2.12 Attendance Centre Requirement (§214)
Main purpose: Punishment (See Section 4.3)

Seriousness level: Low
Available for 18 – 24 year olds only
Expressed in hours between 12 – 36, with a maximum of 3 hours per attendance and
one attendance per day
Report not mandatory, but the court must be satisfied that the centre specified is
accessible to the offender concerned.
2.12.1 Where an Attendance Centre Requirement is the only Requirement in an Order then the
Responsible Officer may be the officer in charge of the centre once contact with the centre
has started (§197(1)b).
Page 50
2.12.2 The centre must be specified, and an Attendance Centre Requirement can only be made
where the provision is available.
2.13 General duties placed on the offender (§220)

2.13.1 A Community or Suspended Sentence Order also places general duties on the offender
which can be enforced as if they were a Requirement of the Order. These duties are:
♦ to keep in touch with the Responsible Officer in accordance with such instructions
as may from time to time be given by that officer
♦ to notify the Responsible Officer of any change of address.
2.13.2 It is these duties which enable the Responsible Officer (Offender Manager) to undertake
their responsibilities as set out in the Act (§198) and which enable the management of the
case: These are:
♦ to make any arrangements that are necessary in connection with the
Requirements imposed by the Order
♦ to promote the offender’s compliance with the Requirements
♦ where appropriate, to take steps to enforce the Requirements.
2.13.3 This is important because while contact within a Supervision Requirement will enable these
functions, many Orders will not necessarily contain a Supervision Requirement.
See also Sections 4.7 and 5.1.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) An overview of the new sentencing provisions
3 An overview of the new sentencing provisions
3.1 A brief summary

3.1.1 This Section gives a brief summary of the different sentencing provisions introduced by the
Act. Full details are given elsewhere in this guide and in other documentation produced by
the Criminal Justice Act Implementation Unit. While the purpose of this document is to
provide guidance for the implementation of the community sentence provisions in Act, this
section gives an overview of all of the main sentencing provisions to set these in context.
Sentencing provisions
3.1.2 The Act as commenced introduces the following provisions:

• a new Community Order which replaces all existing community sentences for adults
• the option for a custodial sentence to be served intermittently as Intermittent Custody
(available only in pilot areas)
• and the option for this to be suspended together with a period of supervision in the
community, as a Suspended Sentence Order (also known as Custody Minus)
• The provisions for the new sentence of Custody Plus, which will replace all custodial
sentences of less than 1 year, has not been commenced. It is expected to come into
force in September 2006. Further guidance on Custody Plus will be issued in due
course.
3.1.3 The Act provides a menu of substantive Requirements which can be used within the new
Orders above. It also provides for the reinforcement of Requirements by the use of
electronic monitoring. The different Requirements are listed in Table 1 (Section 1.1), and
full details are given in Section 2.
3.1.4 The Act also introduces a new framework for custodial sentences of one year or more
which consists of:
• standard determinate sentences with automatic release at the half way point and
licence to the end of the sentence for all sentences of 1 year and over (removing the
distinction between sentences of 1 – 4 years and over 4 years
• Public Protection Sentences for dangerous offenders which must be imposed where:
♦ the offender has committed a Specified Offence (as listed in Schedule 15 of the
Act)
♦ and the court considers there is a significant risk to members of the public of
serious harm from the commission of further Specified Offences.
The Public Protection Sentences consist of:
• extended sentence for public protection (where the maximum penalty is less than 10
years) made up of:
♦ the appropriate custodial term for the seriousness of the offence (minimum of 12
months)
♦ an extended licence period of up to 5 years for a Specified violent offence, or up
to 8 years for a Specified sexual offence
♦ with the total not exceeding the maximum permitted for the offence

♦ and release during the second half of the custodial term subject to Parole Board
assessment of risk.
• indefinite sentence for public protection (where the maximum penalty is 10 years or
more) made up of:
♦ a minimum tariff period set by the court
♦ after which the offender may be released on licence at the discretion of the
Parole Board for a minimum period of 10 years
• life imprisonment where the offence carries a maximum penalty of life and the court
judges there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm from the
commission of further Specified Offences.
3.1.5 The Act also introduces:

• conditional deferment of sentence
• Conditional Cautions
3.1.6 Further details of all these provisions are given in the following Sections, except for the new
custodial framework for sentences of one year or more, which will be covered in separate
guidance.
Purposes of sentencing and seriousness
3.1.7 The Act introduces for the first time statutory purposes of sentencing (§142). Sentencers
must have regard to these purposes in dealing with offenders, and this requirement is taken
into account in the implementation guidance. Further details are given in Section 4.3.
3.1.8 The Act also sets out those factors to be considered by a court in determining the
seriousness of an offence (§143). The Act restricts the use of community sentences to
those cases where the offence (or combination of offences) warrant such a sentence
(§148). The court must be of the opinion that a particular Requirement or Requirements
forming a Community Order are the most suitable for the offender, and the restrictions on
liberty imposed by the Order are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence(s).
Further details are given in Section 4.2.
Sentencing Guidelines Council
3.1.9 The Act established the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) (§167 – 173). The Council is
chaired by the Lord Chief Justice and consists of seven ‘judicial members’ (including a
Circuit Judge, a District Judge and lay justice), and four non-judicial members with
experience in policing, criminal prosecution, criminal defence and the promotion of the
welfare of the victims of crime. The work of the SGC is supported by the Sentencing
Advisory Panel.
3.1.10 The Council’s role is to frame guidelines to assist courts as they deal with criminal cases.
The guidelines should have regard to sentencing practice, promoting consistency in
sentencing, the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-
offending, and the need to promote public confidence in the criminal justice system.
3.1.11 The Act states that every court must have regard to any guidelines which are relevant to
the offender’s case and the exercise of any sentencing function (§172).
Page 54
Timetable for implementation and transitional arrangements
3.1.12 All of the Orders listed above and the new custodial sentences became operational from 4
April 2005, with the exception of Custody Plus which is expected to be introduced in the
autumn of 2006. Intermittent Custody is currently being piloted in a limited number of
prisons and probation Areas (see Section 3.4). The previous community sentences for
juveniles will continue to be available until a new version of the Community Order for
juveniles is enacted in the future.
3.1.13 In all cases the sentences will apply from the date of the offence, and not the date of
sentence. Offences committed prior to 4 April 2005, but sentenced after that date will be
subject to the previous sentencing provisions. Where offenders are being sentenced for
multiple offences committed on either side of this date the court should determine the
appropriate sentence. .
3.1.14 In general the electronic monitoring of all Requirements is available within the Act, but can
only be imposed where the court is advised that the facility is available. In practice,
electronic monitoring will only be available universally for Curfew Requirements, but this will
be extended to other Requirements, particularly Exclusions, when the technology has been
proved and introduced.

AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005] Where existing community sentences made under the
previous legislation are breached after 4th April 2005 they can be dealt with by the powers
previously available, that is, by the issuing of a warning, the imposition of a fine or
amendment of the order as previously possible. If the Court decides to revoke such an
Order and re-sentence the offender for the original offence(s), it is NOT open to them to
re-sentence the offender to a Community Order as defined by the CJA 2003, as clearly
the original offence(s) were committed prior to 4 April 2005, and therefore only sentences
provided by the previous legislation will be available in such circumstances.
3.2 Community Order (§177)

3.2.1 The Act introduces a new Community Order (CO) which replaces all existing community
sentences for adults (CPOs, CROs, CPROs and DTTOs). Whereas previously the different
orders themselves defined the basic content of the sentence (with particular additional
activities being specified through Additional Requirements in the case of Community
Rehabilitation Orders), the Community Order provides a single generic framework, and the
content and purpose is defined by one or more Requirements specified within it. All
Community Orders must consist of at least one Requirement.
3.2.2 Combinations of Requirements can be included in the Order subject to the court having
regard to their compatibility with each other (§177(6)), and their suitability for the offender
and the resulting overall restriction of liberty being commensurate with the seriousness of the
offending (§148).
3.2.3 In making a Community Order the court has to set the length of the Order, which will
normally be the longest period of any of the Requirements imposed, with a maximum of 3
years. All of the Requirements have to be completed by this expiry date unless the Court
has set an earlier date by which one or more of them must be completed. Exceptions to this
are Unpaid Work and Attendance Centre Requirements, the length of which are specified in
hours. For these the Order terminates when the ordered number of hours are completed
(as at present). An Unpaid Work Requirement must be completed within 1 year, but there is
no limit set for an Attendance Centre Requirement. However, weekly sessions of 3 hours
would extend the Requirement to 12 weeks for the maximum length of 36 hours, but the
actual pattern and frequency of attendance is set by the Officer in Charge.

3.2.4 Where the Order includes a Supervision Requirement, this has the same length as the
duration of the Order (s213). This period is that time during which the case is managed by
an Offender Manager and the offender is obliged to keep in contact with them. As at
present, PSR writers and sentencers will need to ensure that there will be time to complete
any other Requirements imposed (e.g. a Programme Requirement) within the overall length
of the Order.
3.2.5 Full details of the operation of Community Orders are given in Sections 4 and 5.
3.3 Custody Plus Order (§181)

Custody Plus is not being implemented at present (see below)
3.3.1 The Custody Plus Order will replace all custodial sentences of less than one year. The
order consists of a custodial period followed by a licence period, which together make up
the sentence of imprisonment. The court sets both the custodial and licence periods.
• The length of the sentence overall must be between 28 and 51 weeks for one offence,
or between 30 and 65 weeks for multiple offences. The sentence must not exceed the
maximum term permitted for the offence.
• The custodial period can be between 2 and 13 weeks for one offence, or between 4
and 26 weeks for multiple offences
• The licence period can be between 26 and 49 weeks for one offence, or between 26
and 61 weeks for multiple offences.
3.3.2 The following illustrates the shortest and longest sentence options, but numerous
permutations will be possible within these parameters.
For one offence:
2 weeks custody + 26 weeks licence = 28 weeks = minimum sentence
2 weeks custody + 49 weeks licence = 51 weeks = maximum (with longest licence)
13 weeks custody + 38 weeks licence = 51 weeks = maximum (with longest custody).
For multiple offences:
4 weeks custody + 26 weeks licence = 30 weeks = minimum sentence
4 weeks custody + 61 weeks licence = 65 weeks = maximum (with longest licence)
26 weeks custody + 39 weeks licence = 65 weeks = maximum (with longest custody).
3.3.3 Courts will therefore be unable to pass a sentence of imprisonment of less than 28 weeks,
although the custodial period may be a short as 2 weeks. The custodial period is also
subject to 50% remission, and for longer periods prisoners will have the normal eligibility for
Home Detention Curfew.
3.3.4 When making a Custody Plus Order the court must also order that the licence is granted
subject to one or more Requirements (§181(3)(b)), in addition to the six standard licence
conditions. The available menu is similar to that for the Community Order, except that the
‘treatment’ Requirements of Drug Rehabilitation, Alcohol Treatment and Mental Health
Treatment (which require the offender’s consent) and the Residence Requirement are not
available. However, the court can order a Requirement for Drug Testing only (which is not
available for Community or Suspended Sentence Orders). The prison governor also has
the power to set licence conditions on release as previously, and this can include the
condition to reside where directed.
Page 56
3.3.5 In many cases the custodial period will be short (and may have already been served on
remand), and the Requirements will take (almost) immediate effect. The Requirements
must be completed by the expiry of the licence period, so PSR writers and sentencers will
need to ensure that there will be time to complete any Requirements imposed.
3.3.6 At any time during the custodial or licence periods the court may (on the application of the
offender, the Secretary of State or the Responsible Officer, and in response to
circumstances which have arisen since the Order was made) revoke the licence, or cancel
one or more Requirements, or replace any Requirement with another of the same kind
(which the court could include if it were then making the Order) (sch 10 paras 3 & 5).
3.3.7 The Custody Plus Order is expected to be implemented in the autumn of 2006. Until then
the current provisions for sentences of less than one year continue.
3.4 Intermittent Custody Order (§183)

Introduction
3.4.1 Intermittent Custody (IC) is a variation of Custody Plus in which the custodial periods are
served intermittently, at weekends or on weekdays, rather than in a single block. It is
designed to avoid some of the negative outcomes (such as loss of employment or
accommodation and family breakdown) which can accompany even short periods of full-
time custody.
3.4.2 Pilots of Intermittent Custody began on 26 January 2004 at Kirkham Prison, near Preston,
for male offenders and at Morton Hall Prison, between Lincoln and Newark, for females.
During the course of 2005, there will be an expansion of Intermittent Custody which is
expected to include two additional Prison Service sites and their surrounding catchment
areas.
Risk Assessment and Suitability of Offenders
3.4.3 The Probation Service will undertake a risk assessment of an offender’s suitability for
Intermittent Custody. In particular, the offender must not present a risk of harm to the public
such that he or she requires a sentence of immediate full-time custody. Sex offenders are
not suitable for Intermittent Custody. However offenders convicted of violence or burglary
offences may be suitable, depending upon the outcome of the risk assessment in each
individual case.
3.4.4 The offender’s mental and physical health, including issues of substance misuse, must be
considered as part of the assessment of suitability. Offenders with serious problems of
drug or alcohol dependency and / or at an early stage of detoxification or with mental
health problems are not suitable for Intermittent Custody.
Sentencing Issues and Arrangements
3.4.5 Intermittent custody is a custodial sentence and must only be imposed where the custodial
threshold has been reached and the court would otherwise impose a sentence of full-time
custody. It will enable the offender to maintain employment, education, accommodation,
caring responsibilities and family ties in the community. In general, offenders in
employment, education or with caring responsibilities are likely to be candidates for
Weekend custody whilst unemployed offenders who wish to maintain family and community
ties will be suitable for Weekday custody.

3.4.6 The sentencing court will specify the custodial pattern to be served; either Weekend or
Weekday custody. Weekend custody will normally run from Friday evening until Sunday
evening and will count as three custodial days. Weekday custody will normally run either
from Monday morning until Thursday afternoon, or Tuesday morning until Friday afternoon.
Each of these periods will count as four custodial days. All of these patterns allow at least
one weekday in the community for official appointments, including reporting to the Offender
Manager.
3.4.7 Before a sentence of Intermittent Custody can be imposed the following provisions must
apply:
• the court must have consulted the responsible Probation Service on the offender’s
suitability (§184(2)). In particular the PSR must cover the issue of risk
• the offender must have consented to the sentence; there is little point in sentencing to
Intermittent Custody an offender who will refuse to turn up for a scheduled custody
period or comply with licence conditions
• there must be a place available at the Intermittent Custody Centre
• the offender must have suitable accommodation available for the licence periods in the
community.
3.4.8 When an Intermittent Custody order is imposed by a court, it will take the form of an overall
sentence, expressed in weeks, within which time the offender must serve a number of
custody days. As an example, a court may impose an overall sentence of 26 weeks, within
which time the offender must serve 42 days of Weekend custody. It will take the offender
14 weeks to complete their custodial days (at 3 days per week), leaving 12 weeks under
Probation Service supervision after completion of the final custody day.
3.4.9 Standard licence conditions will apply to Intermittent Custody sentences, but as for Custody
Plus the court may also impose additional Requirements as follows:
• Unpaid Work Requirement
• Supervision Requirement
• Programme Requirement
• Activity Requirement
• Prohibited Activity Requirement
• Exclusion Requirement
• Curfew Requirement
• Attendance Centre Requirement (only for offenders aged under 25)
3.4.10 The range of Intermittent Custody sentences that can currently be imposed are as follows:
Magistrates’ Courts
3.4.11 For any one offence the minimum overall sentence is 14 weeks and the maximum overall
sentence is 26 weeks. Within the overall sentence, the minimum custodial element is 14
days and the maximum custodial element is 45 custodial days. For two or more
consecutive sentences of Intermittent Custody the total term must not exceed 51 weeks,
and the total number of custodial days must not be more than 90 days.
Page 58
Crown Courts
3.4.12 For any one offence the minimum overall sentence is 28 weeks and the maximum overall
sentence is 51 weeks. Within the overall sentence, the minimum custodial element is 14
days and the maximum custodial element is 90 days. For two or more consecutive
sentences of Intermittent Custody the total term must not exceed 65 weeks, and the total
number of custodial days must not be more than 180 days.
3.4.13 The custodial days of an Intermittent Custody order must be served in full, there is no
remission. But remand time will be taken into account.
Home Detention Curfew
3.4.14 Offenders serving Intermittent Custody will be eligible for release on Home Detention
Curfew (HDC) in exactly the same way as those serving full-time custody. To be eligible for
HDC an offender must be serving a sentence of at least 42 custodial days and must
complete at least 28 custody days or one half of the total number of custodial days in the
sentence, whichever is the longer.
3.4.15 HDC days for offenders on Intermittent Custody will be served intermittently. In other words,
they will be on HDC licence only on those days when they would otherwise have been
serving custodial days. The offender will remain tagged, but the curfew will be monitored
only during the relevant periods, unless a Curfew Requirement is added as part of the
licence conditions.
Operational and Regime Issues
3.4.16 The regimes in the Intermittent Custody centres are demanding, with a focus on education
and employment skills. All offenders will be expected to undertake unpaid community work
during each custodial period.
3.4.17 Agreement has been reached with the Department for Work and Pensions to preserve the
benefits entitlement of offenders sentenced to Intermittent Custody. However, the level of
benefit may change to reflect the time spent in custody and offenders should consult their
local Jobcentre Plus or benefit office as soon as possible in order to clarify their precise
circumstances.
3.4.18 The travel costs of Intermittent Custody offenders will be met by the Prison Service.
Learning from the Pilots
3.4.19 During the first year of operation, there were a total of 158 Intermittent Custody orders
imposed by courts involved in the pilot. Among the initial learning points which emerged
were the following:
• Intermittent Custody is regarded by sentencers as a valuable and positive addition to
the range of sentencing options;
• no significant evidence has emerged to indicate that IC has led to net-widening (using
IC in place of a community sentence) on the part of sentencers
• offenders have welcomed the opportunity provided by Intermittent Custody to maintain
their responsibilities in relation to employment, education and caring
• this positive response on the part of offenders has been reflected in a very high level of
compliance. During the first year, only four offenders failed to arrive for a scheduled
custody period and only one offender had their sentence varied from intermittent to full-
time custody on the grounds of unacceptable custodial behaviour

• offenders have coped well with the demanding nature of the sentence, particularly the
discipline required to undertake weekly journeys to and from the IC centres. Even
where their travel arrangements have been lengthy and arduous, offenders have been
prepared to accept the inconvenience involved in order to maintain their employment
and family commitments.
3.5 Suspended Sentence Order (§189)

3.5.1 The Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) can be thought of as a suspended sentence of
Custody Plus, and for that reason it is informally known also as Custody Minus. However
the range of Requirements available is that for the Community Order and not Custody Plus,
and the Offender Manager and supervision arrangements are the same as that for the
Community Order. A Suspended Sentence Order is therefore similar to Community Order
which specifies a custodial penalty of between 28 and 51 weeks (for a single offence) on
breach. Transitional provisions which allow Magistrates to impose a custodial period of up
to 26 weeks are in place until their sentencing powers are increased (this is due for
implementation at the same time as Custody Plus). It must always be remembered that in
terms of sentencing and seriousness a Suspended Sentence Order is a custodial sentence.
3.5.2 In the event of breach of a Suspended Sentence Order the imposition of the custodial
sentence is not inevitable, and other options are available to the court (see Section 5.4).
However, if the court wishes to impose the custodial sentence, either the full period or a
shorter one, it must first revoke the Suspended Sentence Order, and then make a new
custodial order. The supervision period and Requirements specified in the original
Suspended Sentence Order are superseded by the Custody Plus licence.
3.5.3 The fact that the actual custodial sentence is effected through a separate Order enables the
SSO to be implemented in advance of Custody Plus. The SSO will be available for offences
committed on or after 4 April 2005, with the suspended custodial sentences expressed in
weeks under existing legislation (a minimum of 2 weeks, and up to a maximum of 26 weeks
for one offence or 51 weeks for multiple offences). On breach of the order or commission of
a further offence the custodial sentence can be imposed for the period specified or a
shorter one. However, there will be no further period of supervision on release from
custody, except for those offenders aged under 22 who will be released on a Young
Offender Institution licence as previously. The custodial sentences will be subject to 50%
remission and Home Detention Curfew as previously.
3.5.4 When making a Suspended Sentence Order the court must specify both an Operational
Period, the time for which the custodial sentence is suspended, and a Supervision Period,
which is the time during which the Requirement(s) take effect. Both may be for a period
between six months and two years from the date of the Order. The Supervision Period
cannot be longer than the Operational Period, but it can be shorter. This introduces a
limitation on the use of the Supervision Requirement which must be between 6 months and
two years, rather than any period up to 3 years in a Community Order.
3.5.5 The use of the term Supervision Period does not mean that a Suspended Sentence Order
automatically contains a Supervision Requirement, but only that any one or more
Requirements are in effect during that period. The Supervision Period is that time during
which the case is managed by an Offender Manager and the offender is obliged to keep in
contact with them. Where an Unpaid Work Requirement is included, the Supervision Period
runs until the hours are completed but not beyond the Operational Period.
3.5.6 As with the Community Order, a Suspended Sentence Order must always contain a least one
Requirement. Sections 189(1)(a) and (b) of the Act state that in passing a custodial sentence
the court may (b) suspend it and (a) impose Requirements during the Supervision Period.
Page 60
The court could however, choose to impose a single Supervision Requirement to impose a
minimal level of intervention (which would replicate the previous Suspended Sentence
Supervision Order).
3.5.7 The option of a Suspended Sentence Order is only available to the court after it has
decided that the offending is so serious as to warrant a custodial sentence. But having
decided that a custodial sentence must be passed the court can decide in the interests of
justice to make a Suspended Sentence Order. The previous stipulation that there must be
exceptional circumstances for a custodial sentence to be suspended no longer applies.
3.5.8 This is consistent with the fact that a Suspended Sentence Order cannot be made at the
same time as a Community Sentence where the offender is being sentenced for more than
one offence (§189(5)). Once a court has determined that the offending is so serious it must
impose a custodial sentence, it cannot also consider dealing with some of the offences by
way of a Community Order. However, offending which is above the custody threshold can
still be dealt with by way of a Community Order, so the court could choose to do this and
not make any Suspended Sentence Order (SGC Guideline on New Sentences Section
2.2.10). Further details are given in Section 4.2.
3.5.9 Community Orders will generally involve a greater restriction on liberty in relation to the
seriousness of the offending as outlined above, but this will not be the case for Suspended
Sentence Orders. For Suspended Sentences, the onerousness of the sentence is
embodied in the length of the custodial term which is suspended (albeit that the offender
may not actually serve this), and the purpose of the Requirements should not be solely to
provide further punishment, but to meet other purposes such as protection of the public or
the rehabilitation of the offender. In particular, the court must have regard to the offender’s
ability to comply with the Requirements.
3.5.10 The court should not impose a very onerous set of Requirements which make the offender
likely to breach the Order (SGC Guideline on New Sentences Section 1.1.13). If a
substantial programme of rehabilitative work is considered to be the most appropriate
course of action then the court should consider making a Community Order, rather than a
Suspended Sentence Order where the programme of work is less likely to be completed
due to the possibility of the Order being breached and the custodial sentence imposed. The
SGC Guideline on New Sentences Section 2.2.14 states that:
“...In order to ensure that the overall terms of the sentence are commensurate with
the seriousness of the offence, it is likely that the Requirements to be undertaken
during the supervision period would be less onerous than if a community sentence
had been imposed. These Requirements will need to ensure that they properly
address those factors that are most likely to reduce the risk of re-offending.”
3.5.11 The court can make a Suspended Sentence Order subject to periodic reviews (§191), and
details are given in Section 5. Full details of the operation of Suspended Sentence Orders
are given in Sections 4 and 5.
3.6 Deferment of sentence

Details of the provision
3.6.1 The Act introduces new provisions relating to the deferment of sentence (§278 and
Schedule 23). The previous details for deferring sentence continue as follows:
• the maximum period for deferment in six months

• the offender must consent to the deferment

• it must be in the interests of justice to defer sentence
• sentence can be deferred by Magistrates and Crown Courts.
3.6.2 The main differences from previous provisions are as follows:

• the power to defer sentence can only be exercised where “the offender undertakes to
comply with any requirements as to his conduct during the period of the deferment that
the court considers it appropriate to impose”. This enables the court to impose a wide
variety of conditions (including a Residence Requirement)
• the conditions can be specific Requirements as set out in the provisions for community
sentences, or requirements that are drawn more widely
• the Act allows the court to appoint the National Probation Service, or other responsible
person (with their consent) to oversee the offender’s conduct during the deferment
period and prepare a report for the court at the point of sentence (i.e. the end of the
deferment period)
• there is a new provision enabling the court to deal with an offender before the end of
the period of deferment. For example, if the court is satisfied that the offender has
failed to comply with one or more requirements imposed in connection with the
deferment, the offender can be brought back before the court and the court can
proceed to sentence.
3.6.3 The Sentencing Guidelines Council (Guideline on the New Sentences, Sections 1.2.1 –
1.2.9), points out that because of the wider range of sentencing options open to the courts
under the new sentencing framework, including the increased availability of suspended
sentences, deferred sentences are likely to be used in very limited circumstances
(Section 1.2.6). The Guideline continues:
“…the decision to defer sentence should be predominately for a small group of

cases at either the custody threshold or the community sentence threshold where
the sentencer feels that there would be particular value in giving the offender the
opportunities listed because, if the offender complies with the requirements, a
different sentence will be justified at the end of the deferment period. This could be a
community sentence instead of a custodial sentence or a fine or discharge instead of
a community sentence. It may, rarely, enable a custodial sentence to be suspended
rather than imposed immediately.” (Section 1.2.7).
3.6.4 Report authors must therefore exercise great caution in proposing a deferment of sentence
rather than a Community Order or a Suspended Sentence Order, to have immediate effect.
They will need to satisfy themselves that the offender will be able to comply with clear,
measurable conditions and demonstrate change over a short but specific period of time,
and that the interests of justice would be better served by this change taking place with little
or no formal offender management during a deferred sentence, rather than within the more
structured and managed framework of a formal sentence of the court.
3.6.5 The Sentencing Guidelines state that the requirements of a deferred sentence should not
involve a serious restriction of liberty, but that otherwise a court can impose any
requirements that it considers appropriate, including those specific Requirements available
as part of a Community or Suspended Sentence Order. However, it would be extremely
difficult for such Requirements to be properly managed outside the structure of a formal
sentence, and therefore very difficult for a report author to justify proposing the imposition
of any of those particular Requirements as part of a deferred sentence.
Page 62
3.6.6 Some examples of the possible use of the deferred sentence are given in Section 1.4
example numbers 10 – 12.
Outline Probation policy on the use of deferred sentences
3.6.7 This provision has potential to increase the role of the Probation Service in deferred
sentences above the historical level of the preparation of deferred sentence reports, in
which cases have not normally involved any ongoing supervision or monitoring during the
period of deferment.

AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005] The new provision may involve some degree of
monitoring and supervision in deferred sentences, and given the historical relationship
between courts and the Service it is likely that in many cases sentencers will look to the
Probation Service to undertake this role. This will require the allocation of the case to an
Offender Manager. Probation Areas may make local arrangements to sub-contract this
work to other organisations where this is appropriate, but the low frequency with which
deferment is expected to be used may make this difficult to set up. Offenders subject to a
deferment of sentence should generally be subject to minimal offender management unless
a more intensive level is specified by the court. Areas should not expect to resource the
offender management function at a greater frequency of contact than monthly.
3.6.9 The Probation Service cannot resist a court’s request to supervise a deferred sentence if
the court decides to make such an Order, but advice from the Service to sentencers should
be in line with the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline above. In particular, advice
should be to avoid the use of deferment except in exceptional circumstances, and to limit
use to situations where a different sentence could be justified following successful
completion of the Requirements than would have been passed at the time of deferment.
3.6.10 We anticipate that the use of deferred sentences at the custody threshold will be extremely
limited given the availability of the new Suspended Sentence Order in which the offender is
subject to a range of structured Requirements, with a clear sanction set as the alternative
penalty in the event of default. This provides for the same opportunity in a deferred
sentence for an offender to indicate motivation and resolve to change behaviour, and
importantly provides an appropriate level of supervisory support which the Probation
Service is resourced to provide.
3.6.11 There may be more scope for the use of deferred sentences at the community sentence
threshold, where they might be used in cases where the court considers a fine is not
practicable and / or there are particular merits in pursuing the activities envisaged within the
deferment and where a fine or discharge may be an appropriate course of action following
the successful completion of the Requirement(s). They could provide a vehicle to divert
cases from the community sentence caseload, which would benefit the strategy to
rebalance sentencing and the use of correctional resources, provided that they do not place
an equal or greater demand on the Service than would have been the case had the court
impose a Community Order at the outset.
3.6.12 It will be necessary to be absolutely clear that the outcome of successful completion of the
deferment should be a conditional discharge, and not a Community Order, which should
otherwise have been imposed at the time of deferment. Usually the court should not be
considering a fine as a penalty to impose upon successful completion of the deferment,
because this can be a penalty of equivalent severity to a Community Order, and would not
necessarily represent a reduction in penalty in return for the successful completion. If the
offender is suitable for a fine it could have been imposed at the outset. However Case
Example number 11 in Section 1.4 does give an example of a situation where this might be
realistic.

3.6.13 In general it is not possible to know whether the imposition of a conditional deferment as an
alternative to an immediate Community Order will be more or less onerous on the Probation
Service. This will depend not only on whether the deferment is successfully completed but
also on the exact nature of the conditions which are imposed, or the exact content of the
Requirements which would comprise the alternative sentence. But all conditional
deferments will require some assessment and / or intervention time to advise the court
about the deferment initially, and then monitoring and the submission of a follow-up Pre
Sentence Report at the end of the deferment. However it is important to avoid the risk of
cases being subject to a deferred sentence and then a Community Order following
successful completion, and thus using even greater correctional resources than if the
Community Order had been made at the outset.
3.6.14 Court liaison staff will need to be prepared to consider and respond to pressures from
defence advocates to defer sentence, and the resulting requests for advice to the Service
from sentencers. Careful consideration will be needed in each case where deferment is a
possibility, to assess the benefits for the offender and the resource implications for the
Service, in the light of the Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidance given above. The Case
examples given in Section 1.4 example numbers 10 – 12 suggest some of the issues which
need to be considered in individual cases.
3.7 Conditional Cautions

3.7.1 The Act introduces a provision for the Police to issue a Conditional Caution (in addition to
the power to issue cautions without conditions (the simple caution)). This is being piloted
initially in six Areas and will not be generally available for some time. While the Probation
Service is assisting the pilots in an advisory role it is not anticipated that the Service will be
significantly involved in a nationwide roll-out of the provision. The operating guidelines for
the scheme are set by the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
3.7.2 The conditions can be set flexibly based on the specific situation of each offender, and may
involve:
• self-referral and help to address problems relevant to the offending such as substance
misuse, using facilities which are available to ordinary members of the public
• activities involving restorative activities or mediation between the offender and the victim
3.7.3 The conditions must also:

• be clear and measurable and capable of completion within the time limit for prosecution (so
that the offence could be referred for prosecution in the event that the condition is not met)
• not involve activities which are otherwise only available through a Community Order,
such as participation in an offending behaviour programme or Unpaid Work.
3.8 Persistent offenders

3.8.1 Persistent offenders are those who continue to offend over a period of time. Many offenders
on a wide range of community sentences are persistent. The new sentencing framework
addresses persistence through the normal range of Requirement combinations.The
provisions for dealing with persistent petty offenders (§151)have not been commenced and
are therefore not available at present. However, persistent offending can be considered as
an aggravating factor to be taken into consideration in sentencing.
Page 64
CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Sentencing, Requirements and Combinations
4 Sentencing, Requirements and combinations

4.1 Background
4.1.1 The Implementation Model for the new sentencing framework is based on the twin concepts
of levels of seriousness and combinations of Requirements. The seriousness of the
offending is matched by an Order containing a commensurate level of intervention (that is,
punitive weight or restriction on liberty), which is determined by the number of
Requirements and their length or content. Within this the precise combination of
Requirements can be varied to address the courts intended purpose(s) in sentencing, the
likelihood of reconviction, the risk of harm and any particular offending related needs which
can be addressed.
4.1.2 This section considers these issues and provides detailed information about the implementation
model and how the Probation Service will be expected to work within the new sentencing
framework based on generic orders made up from a range of different Requirements.
4.2 Seriousness
4.2.1 The principle of sentencing being proportionate to seriousness is set out in the Act and in
the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) Guidelines. The Guidelines also provide a further
expansion of the concept of seriousness, and some definitions. Details are given below.
4.2.2 The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline on the New Sentences provides some
examples and definitions of seriousness, (Sections 1.1.25 – 32) but essentially the
seriousness of the offending will always be determined by the court, taking in to account all
of the information available to it at the time. The Act sets out those matters to be
considered in determining the seriousness of an offence (§143). These include:
• the offender’s culpability
• any harm caused or intended to be caused
• all previous convictions, subject to their nature and relevance to the current offence,
and the time lapsed since the conviction
• the commission of the offence(s) while on bail
• motivation, wholly or in part, based upon the actual or presumed race, religion,
disability or sexual orientation of the victim
• the stage in the proceedings and circumstances in which any plea of guilt has been given – this
does not affect the assessment of the seriousness of the offence but rather proposes that the
sentence be reduced from that which would otherwise have been deemed appropriate.
4.2.3 Seriousness can be expressed in relation to sentencing bands and thresholds as shown in
the following diagram ‘Sentencing bands and thresholds’.
4.2.4 The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline on the New Sentences defines three ‘Levels’
of seriousness, Low, Medium and High, within the community sentence band (Sections
1.1.18 – 32). They also suggest that, subject to the factors of any particular case, that a fine
may be an appropriate penalty across a range of seriousness, starting below the
community sentence threshold, and continuing up to and above the custody threshold.
4.2.5 In particular the SGC Guideline on Seriousness (Section 1.36) states that:
“...even where the threshold for a community sentence has been passed, a financial
penalty or discharge may still be an appropriate penalty.”

Sentencing bands and thresholds
Custodial Sentences over 1 year
Suspended Sentence Order & Custody Plus
Custody threshold
High
Community
Med

Order
Low
Community threshold
Discharges
4.2.6 When requesting a Pre Sentence Report the court should give an initial indication of its
view of the seriousness of the offending (SGC New sentences Sections 1.1.16) and this will
be used to ensure that any proposal is commensurate as set out below.
4.2.7 However, in determining a final view of seriousness the court’s decision will be based on
the factors listed above, and in some cases further information on these factors may be
provided through the Pre Sentence Report. While seriousness is determined by the court
and not by the Probation Service, the report may introduce new information about the
offender’s degree of culpability, or the likelihood and / or seriousness of further offending,
and thereby suggest a revision of the view of seriousness.
4.2.8 It is very important in advising courts on sentencing, that probation staff do not mistakenly
equate low OGRS scores with low seriousness and thereby arrive at an erroneously
different view of the seriousness of an offence. OGRS measures the likelihood of
reconviction, and some offenders will have committed serious offences but nonetheless
have a low likelihood of reconviction.
4.2.9 An offender may therefore have committed a serious offence but the likelihood of it
happening again and of a further conviction is low. The court might view this case as very
serious even though the Probation Service’s empirical measures of the situation score low
values. A potential conflict of views between the Service and sentencers on the
seriousness of a case and how it might be dealt with, can be avoided if staff are
encouraged to use their professional discretion and expertise in the assessment of
offenders and their offending, in supporting the use of OGRS, OASys and other structured
assessment tools.
Page 66
4.2.10 In some cases an initial indication of seriousness will not be available, either because the
court has declined to give one, or because the PSR is being prepared in advance of
sentencing at the Crown Court and there has not been an opportunity. In these cases the
report author should make their own assessment of seriousness and indicate this to the
court as an initial view upon which the sentencing proposal is based.
4.2.11 It is important to note that offending which crosses a particular threshold (i.e. between fines
and community sentences, or community sentences and custody) may still be sentenced
below the threshold crossed. Within this hierarchy of seriousness, the punitive impact of a
large fine may be greater than that of the Community Order which would otherwise have
been imposed, and the impact of a Community Order greater than that of a custodial
sentence. This flexible approach to thresholds is set out in the SGC Guideline on
Seriousness in Sections 1.30 – 36.
4.2.12 The Act restricts the use of community sentences to those cases where the offence (or
combination of offences) warrant such a sentence (§148). The court must be of the opinion
that a particular Requirement or Requirements forming a Community Order are the most
suitable for the offender, and the restrictions on liberty imposed by the order are
commensurate with the seriousness of the offence(s). In forming any such opinion the court
must take into account all such information available to it, including a Pre Sentence Report
where required. Further information on court reports is given in Section 1.2.
4.2.13 To ensure that in the tailoring of a Order to a particular case the overall restriction on liberty
is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, the number of Requirements
proposed should normally be limited as follows:
Low seriousness = maximum 1 Requirement

Medium seriousness = maximum 1 – 3 Requirements depending on combination
High seriousness = maximum 1 – 3 Requirements depending on combination
(this can be exceeded for the Long Personal Change, Intensive
Treatment and Intensive Control combinations 9, 10 & 12).
4.2.14 Matching seriousness against the restriction of a sentence can never be an exact
calculation. There is no empirical measure of seriousness, although the Sentencing
Guidelines Council (Guideline on the New Sentences, Sections 1.1.18 – 32) does suggest
example offences against each of the three levels of seriousness within the community
sentence band. The levels of seriousness can be matched against the number of
Requirements as above, and the restriction imposed by an Order is of course dependant
not only of the number of Requirements, but on their individual length and content.
4.2.15 In sentencing it would be impossible to consider the different weight of different types of
activity, but we can take into account either the amount of time the activities take, or at least
the number of appointments involved. This approximates to the deprivation of liberty or 'free
time'. Clearly when considering Exclusion or Prohibited Activity Requirements we have to
assess their impact differently, and the summation of restriction across a set of different
Requirements in a proposed Order is not possible in any simple numerical way. Likewise
we cannot count Curfew or Residence Requirements as deprivation of liberty on an 'hour
for hour' basis using the same scale as for rehabilitative interventions or Unpaid Work.
4.2.16 But in assessing Activity Requirements which involve Employment, Training and Education
or restorative justice activity, we could base ‘punitive weight’ on the number of
appointments the offender will be required to attend. This might have to be an estimate in
most cases, but that is unlikely to be a whole order of magnitude different from the eventual
outcome. For example, an Activity Requirement for Basic Skills in a particular case might

amount to 30 appointments of between 1 and 2 hours each. While this embodies some
variability, it is clearly comparable to a short curfew, or 40 hours of Unpaid Work, or a short
OBP; and is not equivalent to 100 or 200 hours of Unpaid Work.
4.2.17 Community Orders will generally involve a greater restriction on liberty in relation to the
seriousness of the offending as outlined above, but this will not be the case for Suspended
Sentence Orders. For Suspended Sentences, the onerousness of the sentence is
embodied in the threat and length of the custodial term which is suspended (albeit that the
offender may not actually serve this), and the purpose of the Requirements should not be
solely to provide further punishment, but to meet other purposes such as protection of the
public or the rehabilitation of the offender. In particular, the court must have regard to the
offender’s ability to comply with the Requirements.
4.2.18 The court should not impose a very onerous set of Requirements which make the offender
likely to breach the Order (SGC Guideline on New Sentences Section 1.1.13). If a
substantial programme of rehabilitative work is considered to be the most appropriate
course of action then the court should consider making a Community Order, rather than a
Suspended Sentence Order where the programme of work is less likely to be completed
due to the possibility of the Order being breached and the custodial sentence imposed. The
SGC Guideline on New Sentences Section 2.2.14 states that:
“...In order to ensure that the overall terms of the sentence are commensurate with
the seriousness of the offence, it is likely that the requirements to be undertaken
during the supervision period would be less onerous than if a community sentence
had been imposed. These requirements will need to ensure that they properly
address those factors that are most likely to reduce the risk of re-offending.”
4.3 Purposes of sentencing

4.3.1 The Act introduces for the first time statutory purposes of sentencing (§142). These require
the court to have regard to the following purposes:
• the punishment of offenders
• the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence)
• the reform and rehabilitation of offenders
• the protection of the public
• the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
4.3.2 There are exceptions to this for offences where the sentence or a minimum penalty is fixed
by law, or where the offender is under 18. There is no expectation that every sentence will
meet all of these objectives, but every sentence should meet at least one. The Act does not
indicate the purpose(s) of the individual Requirements, but NPD’s interpretation is given in
Table 4 below, in order to assist report writers.
4.3.3 When a court adjourns a case for a Pre Sentence Report, in addition to giving an initial
indication of seriousness, the SGC Guideline on the New Sentences also suggests the
court should indicate its intended purpose in sentencing (SGC New Sentences Sections
1.1.16). An awareness of the purposes of the Requirements may therefore assist report
writers in making proposals about sentencing in line with any intention stated by the court
previously. Conversely they may also help to determine the court’s intention about the
purpose of a sentence passed previously, in view of the actual Requirements made.
Page 68
4.3.4 The table following suggests the main purpose(s) for which Requirements may be imposed,
based on their actual effect. It is designed to assist Offender Managers formulate
appropriate sentencing proposals in line with the courts stated intention, and to frame
Sentence Plan objectives post sentence. It is not a statement of National Probation Service
policy nor sentencing guidelines as to how Requirements should be used. The table only
indicates the main purposes. In particular cases some Requirements may also have other
functions or purpose, such as an offending behaviour programme protecting people from
the danger of continued drink driving or further sexual offences.
4.3.5 In the process of preparing a report the PSR writer may become aware of factors which
suggest that an alternative purpose might be more appropriate, just as information in
relation to seriousness may come to light. For example, the discovery of an alcohol problem
might suggest an Order focused on rehabilitation, including an Alcohol Treatment
Requirement, would be more likely to reduce the likelihood of reoffending than an Order
focused on punishment through Unpaid Work.
4.3.6 In other cases where several intended purposes are indicated by the court, it may not be
possible to achieve them all if the seriousness of the offending does not merit enough
Requirements to do so. Probation Service advice to courts should be against making Orders
which are not commensurate with the seriousness, and to assist the court in determining
which would be the most appropriate purpose(s) to pursue where they are not all possible.
4.3.7 In particular, it is possible that courts may commonly state the dual purposes of punishment and
rehabilitation as the intended purpose in sentencing, or indeed all five of the purposes. To prevent
an increase in the content of Community Orders by comparison with previous community
sentences (e.g., by courts including Unpaid Work or Curfews in more cases than previously),
Probation Service advice to courts should be based on, and remind sentencers of the necessity
for sentences to be commensurate with seriousness. In most cases, Orders which contain both
rehabilitative and punitive Requirements should only be proposed or made where previously the
seriousness would have merited a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order.
Table 4 CJA03 Requirements & NPD’s interpretation of main purpose(s)

Requirement Punishment Reparation Rehabilitation Protection
Unpaid work 4 4 4
Supervision 4
Programme (Accredited) 4
Drug Rehabilitation 4
Alcohol Treatment 4
Mental Health Treatment 4
Residence 4 4
(specified) Activity 4 4
Prohibited Activity 4 4
Exclusion 4 4
Curfew 4 4
Attendance Centre 4
All Requirements are presumed to meet the purpose of the reduction of crime, either through
rehabilitation, or by deterrence through their punitive impact.

4.4 Combining Requirements

4.4.1 In the new Orders the content and/or purpose is defined by one or more of twelve possible
Requirements specified within it. All Community Orders consist of at least one
Requirement. The same menu of Requirements is available for the Community Order and
the new Suspended Sentence Order or ‘Custody Minus’. Requirements can be combined to
produce an individual Order for each offender, subject to their overall restriction on liberty
being commensurate with the seriousness of the offending (§148).
4.4.2 The Act also requires that the Requirements made are suitable for the offender (§148), are
compatible with each other (§177), and as far as practicable do not interfere with the
offender’s religious beliefs or times of work and education, or conflict with any other Order
to which the offender is subject (§217).
4.4.3 Separate Requirements should be used to deliver each component of an Order. For
example, work on Employment, Training and Education should be delivered through a
separate Activity Requirement and an accredited substance misuse programme should be
delivered through a Programme Requirement (and not within a parallel Alcohol Treatment
or Drug Rehabilitation Requirement). This ensures that:
• the offender is clear about the expectations placed upon him / her
• the use of specific resources is recorded and the demand for such provision monitored.
The exception to this is that a small amount of skills assessment or learning may be
undertaken within an Unpaid Work Requirement (20% allowed by National Standards) or a
Supervision Requirement.
4.4.4 There is the potential for Requirements to be used and combined in an almost infinite
number of ways, but the need for sentencers to have regard to the seriousness of the
offending and the purpose(s) of sentencing, as well as their suitability and compatibility,
restricts this flexibility. The national implementation model for the Probation Service has
been designed to provide coherence to this restriction and to prevent the over–use of
Requirements to address offenders’ needs irrespective of the seriousness of the offending.
4.4.5 To support a sentencing framework based on the use of Requirements in relation to

seriousness and purpose, twelve basic or model combinations have been devised to
provide a structure within the flexibility given by the Act. These can be modified in each
case but limit the number of Requirements which can be proposed in relation to the
seriousness of the offending. These are described according to their different types. This
reflects their function, but at a more detailed level than the purposes of sentencing as
outlined in the Act itself (Section 142 of the Act and Section 3 of this Guide).
Restriction Practical Support Personal Change Treatment Control
4.4.6 The twelve combinations can be grouped according to their different types as indicated in
their titles.
Page 70
The five types are:
Type Function Combinations

1 Restriction Restriction, Attendance Centre and Unpaid Work 1 – 4 & 11
2 Practical Support Supervision to address practical problems 5
3 Personal Change focused on changing personal behaviour 7&9
4 Treatment clinical & other interventions to change behaviour 6, 8 & 10
5 Control focused on control and public protection 12
4.4.7 The successful operation of the new framework is dependent on the effective use of
Requirements in appropriate combinations. The national implementation model provides for
different model combinations of Requirements (in some cases they consist of a single
Requirement) to:
• be matched (and if needed adjusted) in punitive weight against the seriousness of the
offending
• provide a consistent function or purpose within each combination
• be matched against:
♦ different likelihood of reconviction
♦ different risk of harm
♦ different levels or types of offending related need.
4.4.8 The model combinations are intended as models or starting points within the flexibility of
the Act, translating the purpose of the sentence (in a particular case) into a set of
Requirements consistent with that intention and commensurate with the seriousness of the
offending.
4.4.9 It is not the intention to restrict courts to just twelve possible community sentencing options.
The model combinations cover the most commonly occurring offending and offender
characteristics, and allow familiar combinations of interventions under previous legislation
to be replicated. But in arriving at the final proposal for sentence, Requirements may be
added or subtracted from the model combination first considered.
Combinations can be created which do not appear in the model combination tables
given in Section 1.3, if the circumstances of a case suggest a different combination
would be particularly helpful and relevant.
Report writers and court liaison staff should not inform courts that a particular
combination of Requirements cannot be made simply because it does not appear in
the implementation model. Legally any combination of Requirements can be made
providing the restriction on liberty is commensurate with the seriousness of the
offending, and the Requirements are suitable for the offender and compatible with
each other.
4.4.10 Similarly the actual length and precise content of each Requirement will be varied
according to the particular case. All of the combinations of interventions which were
available under the previous legislation are possible in the new sentencing framework, and
are available within the model combinations. Indeed the new structure allows Orders to be
tailored more precisely to the needs and circumstances of each case than was possible
previously. The model combinations are intended to assist report writers and Offender

Managers in making proposals to courts and managing sentences. It is not be necessary

for sentencers to be familiar with the menu of different combinations.
Report writers should make NO reference in the wording of their sentence proposals
to model combinations or set packages of Requirements. Instead they should
itemise the specific pieces of work to be undertaken and interventions to be used
with the offender, and list the Requirements and their respective lengths necessary
to deliver them.
4.4.11 Full details of the content of each model combination are given in Section 1.3.
Diagram 6 below (repeated from Section 1.3) translates the previous Orders / interventions
into the new framework of Requirements within the Community Order.
Key to model combination nos.

6 - Old Orders translated into new Requirements
3 Unpaid Work
This diagram illustrates how Orders available previously can be replicated
using combinations of Requirements within a new Community Order
4 Unpaid Work with ETE
3 = Model combination number
5 Practical Support
ICCP Unpaid Work
11
‘lite’ Curfew 6 Short Treatment
CPO Unpaid Work 3
(Activity) 4 CRO Supervision 5 7 Medium Personal Change
CPRO Unpaid Work 7 CRO + Supervision 7 8 Medium Treatment

Supervision Think First Programme
(other Reqs) 9 DIDs etc (other Reqs) 9 9 Long Personal Change
ICCP Supervision DTTO Supervision 10 Intensive Treatment

Programme DRR 8
12
Activity Programme 10 11 Long UW with Curfew
(other Reqs) (other Reqs)
12 Intensive Control
Page 72
Table 5 CJA Model Combinations of Requirements – order by seriousness

Combination Level of Number of Typical OM
Seriousness Requirements Tier
No Description
12 Intensive Control High 2+ 3 or 4
11 Unpaid Work with Curfew High 2 1
10 Intensive Treatment High 2+ 3 or 4
9 Long Personal Change High 2+ 3 or 4
4 Long Unpaid Work with ETE High 2 1 or 2
3 Long Unpaid Work High 1 1
1 Long Restriction High 1 1
8 Medium Treatment Medium 2–3 3
7 Medium Personal Change Medium 2–3 3
4 Medium Unpaid Work with ETE Medium 2 1 or 2
3 Medium Unpaid Work Medium 1 1
1 Medium Restriction Medium 1 1
6 Short Treatment Low 1 2
5 Practical Support Low 1 2
3 Short Unpaid Work Low 1 1
2 Attendance Centre Low 1 1
1 Short Restriction Low 1 1
The Offender Management Tier is not fixed and may vary throughout the Order. Cases posing
significant risk of harm with complex offender management arrangements will be located in Tier 4.
Table 1 in Section 1.1 summarises the detail of each Requirement

Table 5 above lists the twelve combinations, ordered by level of seriousness.
Model combinations which are identical except that they vary in length have the same number (e.g.
Short, Medium and Long Unpaid Work are all variants on combination number 3).
4.5 Sentencing and Assessment Process

4.5.1 The diagram below (‘NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements’) is one of a series
repeated from Section 1.2 illustrating the sentencing process. It represents a matrix of
sentencing proposals (and not a matrix for sentencing itself) and shows how the different
model combinations are related to seriousness, and to the level of complexity. The
horizontal axis in the diagram represents several interrelated factors which determine the
most appropriate sentence proposal, namely the levels of complexity of the case, risk of
harm, likelihood of reconviction and offending related need. Because the diagram simplifies
the interrelationships between these factors it is not possible to ascribe specific values to
points on the scale as illustrated. In practice cases will be allocated to potential
combinations through the use of OGRS and OASys and the Requirement and Intervention
Targeting Schedule.

4.5.2 The diagram shows the allocation of particular combinations to their respective levels of
seriousness. The degree of stratification of the content of Orders in relation to seriousness
is less rigid than it may appear in the diagram because of the considerable degree of
flexibility in the construction of each combination. This level of detail appears in the actual
tables of combinations given in Section 1.3.
3 - NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements

N Combinations available = Combinations including Supervision Requirement
3 Long UW
10
Intensive
Treatment
High
Long UW Long UW
11 + Curfew 4 Long Intensive
+ ETE 12 Control
9 Personal
1 Long Restrict Change
Medium
8
Med 4
Med UW
Medium Ã
+ ETE
1 Med Restrict 7 Personal
Change
3 Short UW Short
6 Treatment
Low 2
Attendance
Centre
Practical
Ã Ã
5 Support
1 Short Restrict
Increasing complexity, risk and need
4.5.3 Cases may exist in the cells marked Ã but for the sentence to be commensurate with
seriousness they should only receive the same combinations in the nearest occupied cell to
the left. This is a way of supporting seriousness as being the primary consideration in
determining sentence, which should involve a lower restriction on liberty for a lower
seriousness of offending, even where the level of offending related need may be high.
4.5.4 The process for the adjournment of cases for reports, and their production, based on the
implementation model is outlined in Section 1.2. The process will use a new Requirement
and Intervention Targeting Schedule which will be based on the existing guidance for
targeting to offending behaviour programmes and expanded to cover all community
interventions.
4.5.5 In assessing cases and making sentencing proposals it is important that Probation Service
staff have regard to the court’s view of seriousness. Where there appears to be a difference
of views this may be due to additional factors which have come to light during the
assessment, of which the court should be informed. Alternatively, it may be due to an over-
reliance on OGRS (suggesting a low probability of reconviction even though the offence is
serious) or an assessment of a low risk of harm (because the probability of future harm is
low, even though the consequences of it would be serious).
Page 74
4.5.6 This potential conflict of views between the Service and sentencers on the seriousness of a
case and how it might be dealt with, can be avoided if staff are encouraged to use their
professional discretion and expertise in the assessment of offenders and their offending, in
supporting the use of OGRS, OASys and other structured assessment tools.
4.5.7 The implementation model, and this guidance in general, incorporates a range of different
dimensions associated with the offending and the offender, but incorporating changes over
time through successive sentencing events is difficult. The model approaches the
assessment and sentencing exercise as if the offender was being considered for a
Community Order for the first time. However, in reality this will not be the case on the
majority of occasions, and in some instances this will lead to a change in the purposes of
sentencing without any change in the circumstances or needs of the offender. The
composition of an Order will not therefore always reflect the offending related need of the
offender.
4.5.8 For example, an offender whose offending is at a medium or high level of seriousness, and
who has significant offending related needs which can be addressed, may be sentenced to
one or more Community Orders over time, all involving combinations of Requirements
focused on personal change. But if the offending continues at the same level, then on a
subsequent occasion the court may decide that the purpose of the next Community Order
will be punishment, and impose a order consisting of a single long Unpaid Work
Requirement (even though the offending related needs remain). Two quite different
sentencing outcomes may thereby be appropriate for the same set of needs and risk
factors, depending on the history of the case.
4.5.9 Because of the flexibility of the Community Order, successive Orders may be made over
time. It should not be assumed that because an offender has been previously subject to a
Community Order on one or more occasions they cannot be made subject to further Orders
in the event of subsequent convictions, or that Orders consisting of the same Requirements
could not be imposed for further offences. The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidance on
the New Sentences allow for the repeated use of Community Orders where the level of
seriousness is appropriate and the offender is willing to co-operate.
4.6 Offender Management Tiers

4.6.1 Cases should be allocated to the appropriate Offender Management Tier within the national
Offender Management model after sentence, and reallocated subsequently as necessary.
The implementation model provides an approximate match to the appropriate tier for the
management and delivery of the particular combinations of Requirements. Cases at Tiers 3
and 4 should be provisionally allocated to an Offender Manager prior to sentence where
possible.
4.6.2 In general, combinations with more Requirements will deliver a higher level of intervention
and involve a greater complexity of case management. But because the level of Offender
Management necessary depends on the complexity and nature of the contact in the case,
and not its overall quantity, the Offender Management Tiers do not match exactly to the
levels of seriousness. So (for example) a long Unpaid Work Order represents a high level
of intervention, but usually the simple nature of the Order places it within Tier 1 for Offender
Management. But in all cases there is the possibility that particular risks may arise during
the Order which necessitate an increase in Offender Management Tier.
4.6.3 Further information on offender management is given in Section 5.1.

4.7 Working with combinations of Requirements

4.7.1 The Act is designed to provide sentencers with as much flexibility as possible in providing
packages of interventions to match the needs of the offender and reduce the likelihood of
further offending. However, the consequence of providing a framework in which individual
Requirements are used to specify the detailed content of the overall sentence, is that the
nature and plan of work the court intends to be undertaken should always be specified
through the use of the relevant Requirements. This approach also maximises the degree to
which the sentence package can be specified and enforced.
4.7.2 Mutually supporting activities which form part of an overall process of rehabilitation may be
split between different Requirements, and it is therefore necessary in some instances for
certain Requirements to be coupled together and not used independently of each other.
4.7.3 Full details of each of the Requirements, along with suggestions about possible and
appropriate uses, are given in Section 2.
The use of Supervision Requirements
4.7.4 The model advocates the use of a Supervision Requirement alongside a range of other
Requirements, because the content of the individual Requirements is fairly specific.
Interventions delivered through the treatment Requirements (Drug Rehabilitation and
Alcohol and Mental Health Treatment) will be limited to that necessary to address medical
and related problems. In most (if not all) cases the offender will also have a range of other
more general and practical issues to be addressed to support their rehabilitation, and this
will necessitate the use of a Supervision Requirement through which they can be
addressed.
4.7.5 Similarly, work delivered through Programme and Activity Requirements will normally
consist of specific programmes of intervention. More general and practical issues to support
rehabilitation, along with pre and post programme work, and work to reinforce and integrate
learning on Programmes and specific Activities, will be necessary but will not be specified
as part of the Activity or Programme. These activities should therefore be carried out in a
Supervision Requirement. This approach of coupling Supervision with certain other
Requirements is built into the model combinations. The Offender Manager (Responsible
Officer) would not have the legal authority to include these activities within the contact
arising from the duty of an offender to keep in touch.
for the same time as the Supervision Period. This automatically ensures that Supervision
will be available to provide the functions indicated above throughout the duration of any
other Requirement (§213). However, in proposing the use of a Programme Requirement,
the Probation Service must ensure that the length of the Order and supporting Supervision
Requirement is long enough to extend beyond the likely completion date of the programme.
4.7.7 Further details of the purpose and use of Supervision Requirements are given in Sections
2.2 and 5.1.
The use of Prohibited Activity, Exclusion and Curfew Requirements

(Restrictive Requirements)
4.7.8 Section 4.3 above suggested the primary purpose of restrictive Requirements to be
punishment, and protection of the public by restricting the possibility for behaviour or
activity which may lead to offending. Such Requirements will have these functions to a
Page 76
greater or lesser extent wherever they are used. A subsidiary impact (not listed in Section
4.3) is the possibility that the temporary restriction on activity may lead to a lasting change
in behaviour, facilitated as part of a wider process of rehabilitation. The implementation
model allows for this possibility in more complex combinations of Requirements focused on
personal change, treatment, or intensive control.
4.7.9 The implementation model envisages these Requirements being used across the full range
of seriousness and in a variety of combinations. For sentences to be commensurate with
seriousness, for low seriousness offending restrictive Requirements can be proposed as
single Requirement Orders, where they may form an effective and comparatively
inexpensive punishment. For medium seriousness offenders they can be similarly proposed
as single Requirement Orders with longer periods of operation. At medium seriousness
they do not appear in model combinations focused on personal change or treatment,
because with the limit of three Requirements the most effective combination would usually
give priority to other Requirements in the Order. However, if the circumstances of the case
suggest a particular restriction would be helpful and relevant then it could be included as
one of the two or three Requirements.
4.7.10 The use of restrictive Requirements is included for high serious offenders. For Orders
where the offender is close to or above the custody threshold, the purpose of the sentence
is punishment, and there are no significant offending related needs which can be met, then
a long period of Unpaid Work can be combined with a Curfew (to replicate the previous
ICCP package for this group) or another restrictive Requirement. Alternatively, restrictive
Requirements can be used as part of an Order where there are significant offending related
needs. In this case the Requirement may have both a protective function and assist with
short term personal change by restricting behaviour which has contributed to offending.
Their use alongside Supervision (and possibly a Programme) increases the possibility that
the behavioural change can be reinforced and perpetuated beyond the end of the
restriction. These options replicate the previous ICCP package for this group, and seek to
maximise the potential benefits of restrictive Requirements.
Electronic Monitoring

AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005. AMENDED TEXT IN ITALICS.] When making an
Exclusion or Curfew Requirement the court must impose an Electronic Monitoring
Requirement unless the facility is not available, or any consent necessary for the monitoring
to work has not been given, or the court considers it inappropriate in any particular case
(§177(3)). The purpose of electronic monitoring is to enhance the protective function of the
Requirement. Where available the court can impose an Electronic Monitoring Requirement
alongside any Requirement. A report is not mandatory, but the court must obtain the
consent of any person whose co-operation is required to make the monitoring practicable.
The Requirement must specify the person responsible for the monitoring.
4.7.12 Where standalone restrictive Requirements are electronically monitored, then the
Responsible Officer may be the person responsible for the monitoring. However this only
applies to single Requirement Orders (and Orders with a monitored Curfew and Exclusion
Requirement only). For multiple Requirement Orders including an electronically monitored
Requirement, then the Responsible Officer will be an Offender Manager. The electronic
monitoring will be carried out by the contractor as previously, but responsibility for
enforcement will lie with the Offender Manager, acting on information supplied by the
contractor.
4.7.13 Probation Areas should seek to discourage the making of standalone restrictive Requirements
without electronic monitoring, because in such cases the Responsible Officer would be an
officer of a Probation Board, and the case would require the resources necessitated by the
allocation to an Offender Manager. Further details are given in Section 5.1.

Alcohol Treatment and Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and DTTOs
4.7.14 [NOTE: THIS PARAGRAPH (FORMERLY NUMBERED 14) IS AMENDED FROM ANNEX
A AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005.] Within the new sentencing framework any Order
containing a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement would be considered as falling within the
current definition of a Drug Treatment and Testing Order. Further advice on commissioning
and planning for the delivery of Drug Rehabilitation Requirement services will be published
shortly.
4.7.15 To ensure that sentencing is commensurate with seriousness, proposals for low
seriousness offenders are limited to a single Requirement, in this case an Alcohol or Drug
Rehabilitation Requirement, without the use of a substance misuse offending behaviour
programme. Treatment will be limited to a short period of specialist counselling and advice
(and testing for DRRs), without the additional support provided through a Supervision
Requirement.
4.7.16 Previous medium and high intensity DTTOs would include supervision, drug treatment and
testing, an accredited programme and a specified activity. In the new framework this would
be replicated using four separate Requirements, which would be commensurate with a high
level of seriousness. Normally offending at the medium level of seriousness would be
limited to three Requirements in the Medium Treatment combination (No. 8). If in a
particular case all four Requirements are needed at this level, then their length must be
shorter than would normally be the case when used in the Intensive Treatment combination
(No. 10) for high seriousness offenders.
4.7.17 However, the new framework allows a much greater degree of flexibility within the overall
constraint that the onerousness of the Requirements must be commensurate with the
seriousness of the offending. Where necessary, Alcohol Treatment and Drug Rehabilitation
Requirements can be combined with Requirements other than a Programme or Activity
Requirement.
4.7.18 Alcohol Treatment and Drug Rehabilitation Requirements can also be used within the
Intensive Control combination (No, 12) where the primary focus of the Order is control rather
than treatment. This enables a wide range of individually tailored combinations to be created
at the intensive end of the interventions spectrum, based on combinations 10 and 12.
Intensive Interventions
4.7.19 The Intensive Control combination (No.12) can be used and adapted to provide a range of
combinations for offenders with high seriousness of offending, high likelihood of re-offending,
and high offending related needs. This combination will normally include Supervision,
Programme and Activity Requirements, plus other Requirements as necessary. It replaces
the existing ICCP and ISM packages where these have been available.
4.7.20 The previous low intensity version of ICCP is replicated in model combination No 11 which
combines Unpaid Work with a Curfew for high seriousness offenders with a low risk of harm
and low or medium likelihood of reconviction.
4.7.21 The actual Requirements ordered can be varied as indicated in the model combination, and
the additional monitoring and information exchange arrangements will be built into the
offender management arrangements. Mentoring should be delivered as part of the
Supervision Requirement.
4.7.22 As indicated in Section 1.3, in PSR proposals each Requirement which will make up the
proposed Order should be itemised, giving details of its content and length, and the (initial)
Page 78
frequency of contact. This serves to highlight the intensive nature of the proposed Order
and its similarity to any previous intensive supervision arrangements.
4.7.23 Orders consisting of 3 or more Requirements will automatically result in 3 or more contacts
per week respectively once they are all in operation, and this frequency and the actual
nature of the contact will probably be more significant in the impact of the Order than total
number of contact hours.
The proposal of more than three Requirements where a Drug Rehabilitation

Requirement is not included should normally be restricted to:
• Prolific and Other Priority Offenders
• high seriousness offenders aged 18 and above with an OGRS score of 74 or
more.
Money Payment Supervision Orders
4.7.24 These will continue to exist as previously, but in general their use should be avoided for low
seriousness offenders below the community sentence threshold, to allow Probation Service
resources to be targeted at more serious cases. For more serious offenders who merit a
community sentence the court could make a Community Order including an Activity
Requirement to deliver work on financial management. The traditional functions of the
Money Payment Supervision Order are also covered by the fine collection and enforcement
arrangements of the courts.

CJA03 National Implementation Guide Edition 2 (v5F) Management of orders
5 Supervision and the management of Orders

The procedural arrangements for the amendment, enforcement and revocation of the new
Orders are the same as for previous Orders, but the powers available to the court are
different. These are outlined in the following Sections.
Orders made at the Crown Court may be dealt with by a Magistrates’ Court where the order so
directs, but must be dealt with at the Crown Court if it does not.
Details are given in Sections 5.3 – 5.6.
5.1 Responsible Officers, Offender Managers and Supervision

Requirements
5.1.1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 uses the concept of the Responsible Officer, who is
responsible for the enforcement and management of Orders, while “Supervision” becomes
a specific Requirement (set of activities) within an Order, which is not present in every
case. The distinction between the two is therefore important:
The role of the Offender Manager as the Responsible Officer is the management of the
Order
The role of the Offender Manager where the Order contains a Supervision Requirement
is additionally to promote the rehabilitation of the offender.
5.1.2 The duties of the Responsible Officer are (§198):

• to make any arrangements that are necessary in connection with the Requirements
imposed by the Order
• to promote the offender’s compliance with those Requirements, and
• where appropriate, take steps to enforce those Requirements.
In all Orders the offender is required to keep in touch with the Responsible Officer in
accordance with their instructions and to notify any change of address (§220).
5.1.3 The Responsible Officer will be an Offender Manager (normally this will be an officer of a
local Probation Board or Youth Offending Team), and all cases will therefore be allocated to
an Offender Manager except:
• where the only Requirement is an Attendance Centre and the offender is aged 18 or
over, the Responsible Officer may be the officer in charge of the Centre
• where the only Requirements are an electronically monitored Exclusion and / or Curfew
Requirement, the Responsible Officer may be the person responsible for the electronic
monitoring.
5.1.4 The Offender Manager will not always be a Probation Officer.
5.1.5 For Community Orders without a Supervision Requirement (e.g. Orders consisting of an
Unpaid Work Requirement only), the role of Responsible Officer will typically operate at Tier
1 of the Offender Management model, where the level of input is low. Promoting the
offender’s compliance and enforcement activity describe typical Offender Manager input in
these cases. The current arrangements for case management in Community Punishment
will be retained for Unpaid Work Requirements.
Page 80
5.1.6 In Community Orders based on model combinations 4 & 11 which have two Requirements
but do not include a Supervision Requirement, the Responsible Officer (Offender Manager)
will have an offender management input at Tier 1 or 2 depending on the circumstances of
the case.
5.1.7 In contrast to promoting compliance, the purpose of the Supervision Requirement is to ‘promote
the offender’s rehabilitation’, and the offender must attend appointments with the Responsible
Officer (that is, the Offender Manager) or another person determined by them (§213). Orders
which contain a Supervision Requirement have a greater focus on rehabilitation, and the
purpose of contact with the Offender Manager is more than that required simply to monitor and
manage compliance with any other Requirements which may be imposed. A key function of the
Offender Manager’s role is to promote the offender’s rehabilitation through the management of
the sentence. In these cases the Responsible Officer carries an Offender Manager role at Tiers
2 – 4. Further details are given in Section 4.7.
5.1.8 Typically Supervision can involve contact to:

• undertake work to promote personal and behavioural change
• monitor and review patterns of behaviour and personal activity
• undertake work to increase motivation and provide practical support to increase
compliance with other Requirements
• deliver pre and post programme work for accredited and other programmes
• support and reinforce learning being undertaken as part of a Programme or Activity
Requirement
• deliver individual counselling
• form and maintain working alliances to help support the offender through other
Requirements in the Order
• model Pro Social behaviour.
5.1.9 While normally the contact would be individual, the Act does not preclude carrying out
these activities within groups if this is appropriate.
5.1.10 The Offender Manager would not have the legal authority to include these activities within the
contact arising from the duty of an offender to keep in touch with Responsible Officer. It is
therefore important that a Supervision Requirement is included in Orders containing certain
other Requirements to provide supporting and reinforcing work in conjunction with those
Requirements as indicated above. Further details are given in Sections 1.3 and 4.7 on
combinations of Requirements. Orders with a single Supervision Requirement may also be
used in low seriousness cases to provide a basic level of support and referral to other
agencies for assistance with practical or personal problems related to the person’s offending.
5.1.11 As indicated above, contact within a Supervision Requirement can be delegated by the
Offender Manager to another person, and this arrangement might be used to provide the
offender with specialised support or advice, for example in relation to assistance to find more
suitable accommodation. In this way the Requirement can be used to address particular
issues which may arise after sentence without amendment of the Order to include a further
Requirement. However, where issues are identified prior to sentence which will require a
significant input of a specialised service or support this should be delivered through an
Activity Requirement included in the order in addition to the Supervision Requirement (see
Section 2.8). The general principle of the Act is that specific interventions should be itemised
within the Order and delivered within appropriate and separate Requirements.
5.1.12 The implementation model therefore envisages an Offender Manager function in all
Community Orders (as well as Suspended Sentence ), and this would be held by NOMS /

NPS for all adult cases except those outlined in paragraph 5.1.3 above. The degree of
Offender Management activity will vary according to the needs of the case in line with the
national Offender Management Model. Reference to specific Offender Management Tiers is
therefore indicative. Notwithstanding the typical tiers suggested above, the actual tier to
which a case is allocated will depend on the particular details, and may vary over time
within the same Order, as the risks and/or complexity of the cases increases or decreases.
5.1.13 All cases should have a Sentence Plan, managed by the Offender Manager, where the
Offender Manager is an officer of a local Probation Board or Youth Offending Team. For
very simple, single Requirement cases, the plan may be similarly simple, and could contain
a single objective to complete the Order satisfactorily.
5.1.14 A new range of Sentence Plan objectives will be introduced with OASys, developed from
the existing Supervision Plan objectives, but covering all of the purposes of sentencing, and
all of the Requirements.
for the same time as the Supervision Period. This automatically ensures that Supervision
will be available to provide the functions indicated above throughout the duration of any
other Requirement (§213). However, in proposing the use of Programme, Activity or
Treatment Requirements, the Probation Service must ensure that the length of the Order
and supporting Supervision Requirement is long enough to extend beyond the likely
completion date of the programme or activity, or at least until the end of the Treatment
Requirement.
5.2 Starts and completions

5.2.1 In multiple Requirement Orders all Requirements start from the sentence date in the sense
that they will be recorded as ‘live’ on an offender management system, and they place legal
obligation on the offender from the date of sentence. However, in some instances
implementation may be deferred within National Standards (e.g. the start of an offending
behaviour programme might be deferred until specific barriers to attendance have been
removed), and a Requirement will only be recorded as ‘active’ on an offender management
system when the offender actually starts contact in relation to the Requirement.
5.2.2 For multiple Requirement Community Orders (only) the court can specify a shorter
completion time for one Requirement than another, but otherwise all Requirements are
considered to terminate at the end of the Order. The court must specify the termination
date, which cannot be longer than three years for a Community Order (§177) and two years
for a Suspended Sentence Order. For those Requirements which can be proposed singly in
the implementation model, the completion date will be determined by the Requirement
itself; for example, a Supervision Requirement of six months, or a Curfew operating for
three months. For Orders containing more than one Requirement it will be important to
ensure the respective lengths are compatible. In particular, the length of the Order and the
Supervision Requirement (see Section 5.2) must be long enough to allow the completion of
any Programme or Activity Requirement (the length of which will not be expressed in terms
of an end date), or Treatment Requirement before the end of the Order.
5.2.3 The previous Requirement for Unpaid Work (Community Punishment) to be completed
within one year from the date of sentence continues, for both Community and Suspended
Sentence Orders (§200). This still applies in a multiple Requirement Order where the
termination date for the other parts of the Order is longer. Notwithstanding the termination
Page 82
date, a Community Order remains in force until the ordered hours have been completed or
the Order amended or revoked.
5.2.4 In the case of a Suspended Sentence Order, the Supervision Period remains in force until
the hours ordered have been completed even if this extends beyond the original
Supervision Period set, except that it cannot be extended beyond the end of the
Operational Period (§200).
5.2.5 In the event that the one year time limit is exceeded, an application must be made for the
Order to be amended to permit the hours to be completed, or for the case to be dealt with
through breach proceedings(Sch 8 para 20 and Sch 12 para 18).
5.2.6 The power of the court to set the length of the Order (§177) does permit a shorter period
than one year to be set for the completion of an Unpaid Work Requirement. However there
would be little point in the exercise of this power, and Areas should advise courts against
this course of action for the following reasons:
• sentencers can be advised that Unpaid Work Requirements will be worked at the rate
set by National Standards (a minimum of 6 hours per week), and any unacceptable
departure from this will result in the case being returned to court for breach, whatever
period for completion has been set
• if the court imposes a shorter period for the Requirement to be completed, and the
Requirement over-runs (and there has been no failure to comply), there is no legal power
for the court to take any action other than to extend the time limit of the Order (as under
Sch 8 para 20 or Sch 12 para 18). The offender would not be in breach if they had been
working regularly so the court would have no powers available in breach proceedings.
5.2.7 The setting of a shorter period for completion does not provide a tougher regime for
enforcement, nor any greater powers in the event of a failure to comply. However it could
result in unnecessary applications for the extension of the Order.
5.3 Amendments, transfers and revocations for good progress

5.3.1 Amendments can be made at any time in response to circumstances which have arisen
since the Order was made, on application to the court by the Responsible Officer or the
offender (Sch 8 para 17 & Sch 12 para 15). This process could be used to remove a
Programme Requirement or replace it with an alternative Programme, in the event that post
sentence assessment indicates the Programme originally specified is unsuitable. Additional
Requirements can only be added following a breach of the Order.
5.3.2 An amendment to a Community or Suspended Sentence Order can:

• cancel any of the Requirements
• change one Requirement to another Requirement of the same type
e.g. replace an offending behaviour programme with a different programme, or alter the
details of an Exclusion or Prohibited Activity, but an amendment cannot replace a
Requirement for another Requirement of a different type (e.g. replace Unpaid Work
with a Programme) except under the circumstances outlined in paragraph 5.3.6 below
In the case of a Suspended Sentence Order, Requirements can be replaced with those
of a different type with the offender’s consent but only at a review hearing (see Section
5.6.7) or under the circumstances outlined in paragraph 5.3.6 below
• revoke the Order
• both revoke the Order and deal with the offender in any way which was possible at the
time the Order was made

When re-sentencing the court must take into account the extent to which the offender
has complied with the Requirements of the Order.
5.3.3 The offender’s consent is necessary before amending a Drug Rehabilitation, or Alcohol or
Mental Health Treatment Requirement, and if the offender refuses to consent then court may:
• revoke the Order and deal with the offender in any way which was possible at the time
the Order was made
• and may impose a custodial sentence even if the seriousness of the original offending
was below the custody threshold.
5.3.4 If an offender is subject to a Drug Rehabilitation, or Alcohol or Mental Health Treatment

Requirement, and the medical practitioner or person responsible for the treatment:
• is for any reason unwilling to continue to direct the treatment,
• or forms the opinion that:
♦ the treatment should continue beyond the period specified in the Order
♦ a different treatment is needed
♦ the offender is not susceptible to treatment
♦ the offender does not require further treatment
he or she must make a report in writing to that effect to the Responsible Officer, who must
then apply to the court for a cancellation or variation of the Requirement (Sch 8 para 18 &
Sch 12 para 16).
5.3.5 The court can use the amendment process to extend the normal 12 month time limit for
completion of an Unpaid Work Requirement if it considers it would be in the interests of
justice to do so having regard to circumstances which have arisen since the Order was
made (Sch 8 para 20 & Sch 12 para 18) (see Section 2.1).
5.3.6 The arrangements for the transfer of Orders where the offender intends to reside in a
different petty sessions area are similar to the previous arrangements, and are the same for
both Community and Suspended Sentence Orders (Sch 8 para 16 & Sch 12 para 14).
However, if the court considers that one or more of the Requirements cannot be complied
with if the offender moves to another area, then the Order cannot be transferred unless the
court first cancels those Requirements or substitutes them with other Requirements which
can be complied with in the new area. In particular, the court may not transfer an Order
containing a programme Requirement unless it appears to the court that the accredited
programme specified in the Requirement is available in the new petty sessions area. Under
these circumstances the court can substitute a Requirement for one of a different type, but
this is not possible in amendments for other reasons as set out in Section 5.3.2 above.
5.3.7 At anytime an application can be made by the Responsible Officer or the offender for a
Community Order to be revoked on the grounds that the offender has made good progress
or a satisfactory response to supervision or treatment (Sch 8 para 13(2)(3)). The same
power exists in relation to a Suspended Sentence Order, except that while the community
Requirements may be cancelled the suspended sentence will remain in force for the
remainder of the operational period (Sch 12 para 13).
Page 84
5.4 Breach of Requirements

Warnings
5.4.1 The Act sets out the regime for warning and enforcement in the event of a failure to comply
with a Community or Suspended Sentence Order (Sch 8 para 5 & Sch 12 para 4), and this
is reflected in National Standards. The Responsible Officer (Offender Manager) has a duty
to give a warning to the offender if he or she considers that the offender has failed without
reasonable excuse to comply with one or more of the Requirements of the Order.
Alternatively, breach proceedings can be initiated in place of giving this warning, and must
be initiated if a warning has been previously given within the previous twelve months. The
warning must:
• describe the circumstances of the failure
• state that the failure is unacceptable
• inform the offender that a further failure to comply within the next twelve months will
render him or her liable to be returned to court.
Community Orders
5.4.2 The options available to the court to deal with a failure to comply are different under the
new legislation. Following a breach of a Community Order (Sch 8 para 9) the court must:
• amend the Order so as to impose more onerous Requirements which the court could
include if it were then making the Order, that is:
♦ amend any of the existing Requirements to make them more onerous (provided it
does not extend them beyond the maximum length available), and / or
♦ substitute any of the existing Requirements with another of a different type and
length which is more onerous, and / or
♦ add one or more further Requirements.
In amending the Order the court cannot extend the original length of the Order by which
all the Requirements must be completed
• or revoke the Order and deal with the offender in any way which was possible at the
time the Order was made, including:
• imposing a sentence of imprisonment up to 51 weeks even where the original offence
was NOT punishable by imprisonment, provided that:
♦ the offender is aged 18 or over, AND
♦ has wilfully and persistently refused to comply with the Requirements of the
Order.
5.4.2 In dealing with the breach the court must have regard to the extent to which the offender
5.4.3 The court is NOT able to:

take no action,
or issue a warning,
or impose a fine
and allow the Order to continue.

Suspended Sentence Orders
5.4.4 Following the breach of a Suspended Sentence Order (Sch 12 para 8), either by virtue of a
failure to comply with the Requirements or a subsequent conviction during the Operational
Period, the court must:
• activate the suspended sentence with the original term and custodial period, or
• activate the suspended sentence with the original term and / or the custodial period
reduced, or
• amend the Order so as to impose more onerous Requirements which the court could
include if it were then making the Order, that is:
♦ amend any of the existing Requirements to make them more onerous (provided it
does not extend them beyond the maximum length available), and / or
♦ substitute any of the existing Requirements with another of a different type and
length which is more onerous, and / or
♦ add one or more further Requirements
• extend the Supervision and / or Operational Periods subject to the Supervision Period
not exceeding the Operational Period, and neither exceeding 2 years from the date of
the original Order.
5.4.5 The court cannot revoke a Suspended Sentence Order unless it is activating the custodial
sentence (see Section 5.5 below).
5.4.6 The court must activate the suspended sentence unless it is of the opinion it would be
unjust to do so in view of all of the circumstances, including the extent to which the offender
has complied with the Requirements of the Order and the facts of any subsequent offence.
General considerations
5.4.7 If in dealing with a breach the court wishes to make a new Drug Rehabilitation, or Alcohol
or Mental Health Treatment Requirement the consent of the offender and the other
limitations on making these Requirements still apply (see Section 2).
5.4.8 Where the court wishes to deal with a breach by adding a further Requirement as a
punishment, the use of Unpaid Work may be appropriate in this situation. However the
court will be subject to the same 40 hours minimum as at the time of the original sentence,
and in many cases this will represent too severe a penalty. In this situation a very short
curfew might be more commensurate with the seriousness of the breach.
5.4.9 Where a Community or Suspended Sentence Order already contains an Unpaid Work
Requirement there is no minimum number of hours which may be added, but the total on
aggregate must not exceed 300 hours. This option would not therefore be available where
300 hours were ordered at the time of sentence, even if some have been worked
subsequently.
5.4.10 If the court decides to revoke a Community Order and pass a new sentence, it must have
regard to the degree to which the offender had complied with the Order and the extent to
which the Requirements had been completed. If a new Community Order is made then it
should be less onerous than the original Order, such that the combined impact of the
original Order completed to date and new the Order is marginally greater than the original
Order in total. However, the circumstances of the breach may suggest that a completely
different selection of Requirements should be imposed, for example the replacement of an
Page 86
Order focused on punishment with one focused on personal change or treatment. In this
case it may be impossible to determine exactly the comparative onerousness of the old and
new Orders.
5.4.11 In general, in re-sentencing for the original offence(s) the court must have regard to the
seriousness of the original offending, and can only impose a commensurate sentence. If
the original offending was below the custody threshold then a custodial sentence cannot be
imposed on breach of the Order since the court is constrained by the requirement to deal
with the offence in any way which was possible at the time the Order was made. However,
if the offender has wilfully and persistently refused to comply with the Requirements of the
Order (and is aged 18 or over) the court can impose a custodial sentence irrespective of
the seriousness of the original offences(s).

AS DISTRIBUTED IN PC25/2005.] Where existing community sentences made under the
previous legislation are breached after 4 April 2005 they can be dealt with by the powers
previously available, that is, by the issuing of a warning, the imposition of a fine or
amendment of the order as previously possible. If the Court decides to revoke such an
Order and re-sentence the offender for the original offence(s), it is NOT open to them to
re-sentence the offender to a Community Order as defined by the CJA 2003, as clearly
the original offence(s) were committed prior to 4 April 2005, and therefore only sentences
provided by the previous legislation will be available in such circumstances.
Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance on dealing with breaches
5.4.13 The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guideline on the New Sentences gives the following
guidance at Sections 1.1.44 – 47:
Having decided that a community sentence is commensurate with the seriousness of

the offence, the primary objective when sentencing for breach of Requirements is to
ensure that those Requirements are completed.
Custody should be the last resort, reserved for those cases of deliberate and
repeated breach where all reasonable efforts to ensure that the offender complies
have failed.
Before increasing the onerousness of Requirements, sentencers should take

account of the offender's ability to comply and should avoid precipitating further
breach (and the possibility of a custodial sentence) by overloading the offender with
too many or conflicting Requirements. For that reason, and particularly where the
breach occurs towards the end of the sentence, the court should take account of
compliance to date and may consider that extending the supervision or operational
periods will be more sensible.
There may be cases where the court will need to consider re-sentencing to a
differently constructed community sentence in order to secure compliance with the
purposes of the original sentence, perhaps where there has already been partial
compliance or where events since the sentence was imposed have shown that a
different course of action is likely to be effective.

5.5 Conviction for a further offence

Community Order
5.5.1 Following conviction for a further offence (Sch 8 para 21) the court may:
• revoke the Order
• or both revoke the Order and deal with the offender in any way which was possible at
the time the Order was made
When re-sentencing the court must take into account the extent to which the offender
5.5.2 The court therefore has the option to leave the existing Community Order in place and
unaltered while dealing separately with the new offence. However, if the court intends to
make a Community or Suspended Sentence Order for the new offence(s) then the
management of the offender will be greatly simplified if the original Community Order is
revoked. In making a new Order the court must ensure the Requirements imposed do not
conflict with any other Order to which the offender is subject (§217).
Suspended Sentence Order
5.5.3 In case of Suspended Sentence Orders the court’s powers on conviction for a further
offence are the same as for the breach of a Requirement (Sch 12 para 8) as set out in
Section 5.4 above. The offender is liable for breach of the Order by conviction for a further
offence committed at any time during the Operational Period (even when the Supervision
Period has expired).
5.5.4 Where the court decides to activate the suspended sentence, either all or in part, the court
must revoke the Suspended Sentence Order and make the appropriate Custody Plus Order
in its place. Prior to the introduction of Custody Plus the court will impose the appropriate
custodial sentence of between 2 and 26 weeks, of which half will be served in custody, less
any time on Home Detention Curfew (see Section 3.5).
5.6 Reviews of Orders

5.6.1 The Act provides for reviews as set out in paragraphs 5.6.7. When making an Order the
court can provide for the Order to review the offender’s progress in complying with the
Requirements. At a review the court considers a report submitted by the Responsible
Officer (Offender Manager) to the court. Alternatively the court can provide for the review to
be conducted at a review hearing, and in this case the Responsible Officer submits a report
to the court in advance and the offender is required to attend the hearing.
5.6.2 If at a review without a hearing the court, after considering the Responsible Officer’s report,
considers that the offender’s progress is unsatisfactory, it may arrange a hearing and order
the offender to attend. At that review hearing the court may then amend the Order to
provide for subsequent reviews to be made at a review hearing. Alternatively the court may
amend the order at the review so that each subsequent review is made at a review hearing
(but the offender is not required to attend for that review).
5.6.3 If at a review hearing the court considers the offender has without reasonable excuse failed
to comply with any of the Requirements the court may adjourn the hearing for the purpose
of dealing with the offender under enforcement proceedings. A review or review hearing
cannot itself be used to deal with a breach of the order. The adjournment to a subsequent
hearing allows the offender to seek legal advice and representation.
Page 88
5.6.4 If on receipt of the Responsible Officer’s report prior to a review hearing the court considers
that the offender’s progress is satisfactory the court may order that no review hearing is to
be held at that review (only), and it may also under these circumstances or at a review
hearing amend the order so that each subsequent review is held without a hearing.
5.6.5 Probation Areas will need to ensure that reports are prepared and then submitted an
appropriate period in advance of the review hearing to which they relate, to suit the
arrangements for dealing with reviews at local courts. These arrangements may vary, for
example depending on whether reviews are dealt with by the sentencer(s) making the
original Order, or at special review sittings.
5.6.6 The arrangements for reviews are not intended as an alternative for dealing with
enforcement. Any failure to comply with an Order must be dealt with immediately through
the arrangements for breach of Requirements outlined above in Section 5.4.
5.6.7 Other powers relating to the review of Orders can be summarised as follows:
Suspended Sentence Orders (§191 & §192)

• the Court may order reviews, but does not have to
• the Order must specify the period of reviews, but the Act does not set limits to what the
period might be. The period of the reviews can be amended at a review or review
hearing
• the court can amend the Order at a review hearing (but not at a review only), but
cannot impose Requirements of a different type (see Section 5.3.2) or amend a Drug
Rehabilitation, or Alcohol or Mental Health Treatment Requirement unless the offender
consents
• the court can change the Supervision Period (but not the Operational Period) subject to
the original limitations
• the court can cancel (and if necessary, subsequently reinstate) the Requirement for
future review hearings, but cannot cancel the future reviews themselves (but the court
could set a lengthy interval between subsequent reviews).
Community or Suspended Sentence Order with a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement

(§210 & §211)
• reviews are optional for Drug Rehabilitation Requirements up to and including 1 year
• reviews are mandatory where the Requirement is longer than 1 year, and at least the
first review must be a review hearing
• however reviews should be proposed for all Requirements of 1 year, see below
• the report from the Responsible Officer must include drug testing results and the views
of the treatment provider as to the treatment and testing of the offender
• reviews may be held at any interval of 1 month or more, but see below
• the court may amend the Order in relation to the Drug Rehabilitation Requirement
providing:
♦ the Requirement is not reduced below the minimum length of six months
♦ the offender consents to the amendment
• if the offender refuses to consent to the proposed amendment the court may:

♦ revoke the Order and deal with the offender in any way which was possible at the
time the Order was made, including imposing a custodial sentence where the
original offence was punishable with imprisonment, even where the seriousness
of the offending was below the custody threshold
When re-sentencing the court must take into account the extent to which the
offender has complied with the Requirements of the Order.
• the court can cancel (and if necessary, subsequently reinstate) the requirement for
future review hearings, but cannot cancel the future reviews themselves (but the court
could set a lengthy interval between subsequent reviews).
Community Order without a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement (s178)
5.6.8 The power to order reviews in Community Orders without a Drug Rehabilitation
Requirement is not commenced.
Frequency and suitability for reviews
5.6.9 The legal framework for reviews is set out above, and within those limits courts are free to
provide for reviews in whichever cases and at what ever frequency they consider
appropriate. However where the court intends to include reviews in an Order the Probation
Service should suggest the following frequency for the hearings, in line with the revised
National Standards (NSs):
• Orders with a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement:
♦ at 4 weekly intervals for the first 16 weeks (minimum in NSs), then
♦ at 8 weekly intervals for the next 32 weeks (suggested normal practice), then
♦ at 16 weekly intervals thereafter (minimum in NSs)
• Suspended Sentence Orders without a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement:
♦ at 16 weekly intervals.
5.6.10 Reviews are mandatory for all Orders containing a Drug Rehabilitation Requirement over 1
year, and should also be proposed for Requirements of 1 year. Proposing reviews is
optional for Requirement of less than 1 year.
5.6.11 In other circumstances the possibility of proposing reviews in the Pre Sentence Report
should be considered in every Drug Rehabilitation Requirement or Suspended Sentence
Order case where:
• the offender is a Prolific or Other Priority Offender,
OR
• the offender is assessed at the time of sentence as being high or very high risk of harm
• AND has an OASys score of 100 or more.
Page 90
Note of key amendments included in this version (5F)

This version (5F) includes a number of amendments to version 4F issued as the original
PC25/2005 Annex A. The key amendments are listed below. More minor clarifications, etc, are
not specified:
Page Para Previous Nature of amendment

page/
paragraph
no., as in v4F
1-2 Index - Updated numbering to reflect changes; small changes
to section heading for consistency
8 Table 1 – - Clarified that purposes and length of Requirements
Requireme are NPD interpretation, unless otherwise indicated
nts
33 1.5.9 Option 9, Corrected max no of hours of Unpaid Work in case
Option 9, second para example from 100 to 150
second and bullet 6
para and
bullet 6
38 Table 1 – - As earlier amends on page 8
Requireme
nts
49 2.10.3 P49, para 3 Clarified position on availability of Exclusion
Requirements
55 3.1.12 P52, para 12 Clarified that the Community Order is not available for
young offenders
55 3.1.15 P53, 15 Corrected advice on position of breach of pre-CJA03

community sentences
60 3.5.1 P57, para 1 Clarified the position regarding magistrates’
sentencing powers for Suspended Sentence Orders
63 3.6.8 P60, para 8 Amendment regarding offender management tiers for
Deferred Sentences
77 4.7.11 P74, 11 Clarified position on availability of Exclusion
Requirements
78 4.7.14 P75, 14 Amendment regarding advice on commissioning
services for Drug Rehabilitation Requirements
87 5.4.12 P85, 16 Corrected advice on position of breach of pre-CJA03
community sentences.
Throughout - - Tone amended to clarify where guidance is explicit in
Act or in SGC Guidelines and where it is advice
based on NPD’s interpretation
Throughout - - Removal of some unnecessary information about
measures not being commenced
Throughout - - Updated to ‘Edition 2 version 5F, May 2005’
Throughout - - Various layout changes and clarification of
renumbering to reflect changes
Contact details
Criminal Justice Act Implementation Unit, National Probation Directorate
Email: cja.sip@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7217 8047

Criminal Justice Act 2003 Implementation: Unpaid Work
PC25/2005 – Annex B
UNPAID WORK – FURTHER GUIDANCE
1. Purpose
To give guidance to areas on the operation of the Unpaid Work
requirement of the Community Order from April 2005.
2. Relevant Previous Probation Circulars

PC 59/2004
3. Summary
The implementation of Enhanced Community Punishment improved

the quality of service delivery and provided staff with new skills.
Supervisors became more integrated in Community Punishment Units
and the potential of their role was fully recognised. It is important that
these achievements are preserved as the transition is made to the
Unpaid Work Requirement of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Probation Circular 59/2004 introduced the principle that where
offenders, who present a low likelihood of reconviction and low risk of
harm are placed on Unpaid Work for offences of low seriousness, the
Unpaid Work can be delivered in a different way from that which is
delivered to those offenders who commit offences of greater
seriousness or present a higher likelihood of reconviction.
Areas were given the discretion to make changes to the delivery of
Enhanced Community Punishment to this low likelihood/ low
seriousness group where this would ease the management of high
workloads. Specifically, areas were given flexibility in determining the
size of workgroups and the recruitment and training of supervisors and
were encouraged to make greater use of placements with local
community and voluntary organisations.
This guidance similarly gives areas the flexibility to make changes to
their delivery of Unpaid Work. The principle of managing offenders
differently in accordance with levels of seriousness and likelihood of
reconviction will underpin the delivery of Unpaid Work as a requirement
of the new Community Order. It is important that offenders who present
a medium or high likelihood of reconviction should be given the
opportunity to gain maximum benefit from the rehabilitative potential of
Unpaid Work insofar as this meets their assessed needs. For this
group of offenders, the key elements of the Enhanced Community
Punishment scheme will continue to be made available within Unpaid
Work or supplemented, where appropriate, by the Activity requirement
(Employment Training and Education).
PC25/2005 – Annex B Page 1

The guidance in this document will be developed in the light of experience and to reflect comments
received
For low likelihood/ low seriousness offenders, Unpaid Work can be

delivered in a simpler form whilst continuing to provide rigorous and
purposeful punishment.
Further revisions to this guidance will be issued as necessary and as
detailed work is progressed on the elements identified below.
The Reparation Marque: There is increasing recognition of the
importance of ensuring that the work undertaken by offenders is visible
to local communities, thereby increasing their confidence in community
penalties. The reparation marque, which will be promoted in the course
of Spring 2005, will enable areas to identify work undertaken by
offenders and areas are encouraged to make the best possible use of
this. Further advice on this and community engagement will be issued
shortly.
4. Structure of Guidance
This guidance will be structured around the chapter headings used in
the Enhanced Community Punishment manual and should be used in
conjunction with it. Each section will begin with an overview of the
changes in that chapter and will go on to give more detailed information
and to specify which parts of the scheme need no longer be applied in
relation to low risk/low seriousness offenders.
There will be additional sections on ‘Civil Renewal and Community
Engagement’ and on ‘Offender Management’.
This guidance will need to be used in conjunction with:
• National Standards 2005
• Guidance on the Implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
• PC 18/2005 ‘ New Sentences and the New Report Framework’
• Guidance on the Activity Requirement (Employment, Training and
Education)
• NOMS Communities and Civil Renewal Strategy
The following pieces of work are currently being undertaken or are
planned and will be issued on completion:
• Reissued forms which reflect the terminology of the Criminal Justice
Act. These will include a non-OASys Sentence Plan to be used with
low likelihood/low seriousness offenders and a revised Placement
Quality Standards form to be used for the assessment of
placements which are to be used only by the low likelihood/ low
seriousness group
• Revised training materials to underpin the delivery of Unpaid Work
• More detailed guidance on Unpaid Work and Offender Management
• More detailed guidance on community safety and engagement

received
• Guidance on the delivery of Unpaid Work imposed for the breach of a

Community Order which did not originally contain an Unpaid Work
requirement
5. Terminology
The term Community Punishment is replaced for all purposes under
the new legislation by the term Unpaid Work. The various elements of
Enhanced Community Punishment remain available and can most
usefully be viewed as an intervention which can be deployed within the
Unpaid Work requirement for appropriate offenders. The ECP scheme
should not be referred to in proposals to the court .
In line with current documentation issued by NPD, where the term
likelihood is used in this document, it refers to the likelihood of
reconviction. Within the context of Unpaid Work, the term low
likelihood refers to offenders with an OGRS score below 41 and
medium or high likelihood refers to offenders with an OGRS score of
41 and above.
Whilst this should provide a reasonably robust tool for differentiating
between offenders on the basis of likelihood of reconviction, this
guidance is based in the assumption that there will be cases where an
individual assessment indicates that, despite the OGRS score being
low, the case merits a higher degree of intervention and that
professional discretion will be used in such cases.
Where the terms low, medium or high seriousness are used, these
refer to the level of offence seriousness indicated by the sentencing
court.
The term Vocational Skills Learning replaces Guided Skills Learning.
Guided Skills Learning is a specific term referring to learning which is
closely integrated with the performance of Unpaid Work. The change in
terminology reflects the expectation that this type of scheme will be just
one of a range of ETE interventions available so that the type of
provision can be more closely matched to offender need.
The following abbreviations are used:
• CDRP – Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership
• ETE – Employment Training and Education
• PPWS – Pre Placement Work Session
• PSAI – Post Sentence Assessment Interview
• UW – Unpaid Work
6. Management of Risk
Many offenders on Unpaid Work requirements will present a low risk of
serious harm. The level of risk of serious harm will not be the sole
factor in deciding what form of Unpaid Work should be delivered to an

received
offender – this will be dependent upon the likelihood of reconviction

and identified offending related needs.
Since many Unpaid work requirements will be made on the basis of a
Fast delivery PSR and the assessment of risk made purely on the Risk
of Harm screening and the OGRS score, it will be especially important
to be alert to risk issues which might not have been identified in the
course of this assessment. Offenders with a history of sexual offending
or domestic violence, for example, can have low OGRS scores. It will
be important that an Offender Manager conducting the Post Sentence
Assessment Interview is alert to this possibility and appropriately
trained to identify it, even where it has been anticipated that the case
will be managed at Tier1.
Levels of risk of serious harm can change and an offender who is

assessed as presenting a low or medium risk of harm might become
more risky in the course of performing an Unpaid Work requirement.
Whilst the requirement to review the sentence plan on low
likelihood/low seriousness offenders has been kept to a minimum, it
must always be borne in mind that the level of risk could change. It is
essential that there are channels of communication between the
supervisor, other staff in an Unpaid Work Unit and the Offender
Manager so that any new information can be shared and fed into an
existing OASys assessment or trigger the preparation of one if it is not
already in existence.
7. Guidance
7.1 Section 1: ‘A Brief Introduction to ECP’
Overview: Within the sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal
Justice Act 2003, Community Punishment will become Unpaid Work
and it is important that the language of the Criminal Justice Act is used
in a consistent way. The key elements of ECP will continue to be
applied to offenders who present a medium/high likelihood of
reconviction and/or have committed offences of medium/high
seriousness.
Throughout this guidance those offenders who present a low likelihood
of reconviction and have committed an offence of low seriousness are
treated as a distinct group. This should not be regarded as a rigid
categorisation. There might be cases where the offence has been
categorised as being of medium seriousness but which could more
appropriately be managed as a low risk/low seriousness case.
If this decision is taken, it must be recorded in the Sentence Plan by
the Offender Manager and reasons given e.g. the level of seriousness
is medium but the OGRS score is very low and there is no indication of
offending related needs. Where an offender has a medium or high
likelihood of reconviction, (41 OGRS or above), and relevant needs
have been identified, they should always have placement matching,
input on problem solving and skills learning made available to them.

received
With the low likelihood/ low seriousness group, all Probation staff
should model pro-social attitudes and behaviours but placement
matching, structured input on problem solving and detailed vocational
and employment work will not be mandatory. This group will usually be
sentenced on the basis of a fast delivery PSR with Risk of Harm and
Basic Skills screenings.
It will not be necessary for the full OASys assessment to be completed
post-sentence. This group will have a standard, non-OASys Sentence
Plan.
The responsibilities of staff towards offenders who present a
medium/high likelihood of reconviction will remain the same as they
were under the ECP scheme but they will also be working with low
risk/low seriousness offenders where the quality assurance aspect of
the ECP scheme need not be applied. It is envisaged that the
responsibilities of Quality Assurance Managers will remain the same
but will not extend to all the caseload. However, the implementation of
Offender Management structures brings into question where the QAM
will be situated i.e. within the Unpaid Work interventions unit or within
the Offender Management Unit. The implications of this will be fully
considered in future guidance.
Detail: Unpaid Work can be a single requirement attached to a

Community Order or can be one of two, three or more requirements. It
is a principle of the act that the overall level of intervention should
match the level of seriousness identified by the court and this will affect
the length of Unpaid Work requirement. The ranges identified by the
Sentencing Guidelines Council, where UW is used as a single
requirement, are as follows:
• Low seriousness = 40- 80 hours
• Medium seriousness = 80 – 150 hours
• High seriousness = 150 – 300 hours.
NPD guidance links the number of requirements which a PSR writer
should propose to the level of seriousness indicated by the court.
• Low seriousness = 1 requirement
• Medium seriousness = 1-3 requirements
• High seriousness = 1-3 or more requirements.
Within the National Implementation Guidance issued by NPD, Unpaid

Work forms part of the following model combinations of requirements:
• No 3: Unpaid Work (40- 300 hours, dependant on level of
seriousness)
• No 4: Unpaid Work with activity requirement for ETE (80- 300
hours, dependent on level of seriousness)

received
• No 7: Medium Personal Change: Supervision + 1 or more of

Programme/ Specified Activity / Unpaid Work (up to 100 hours)
• No 9: Long Personal Change: Supervision + Programme/Specified
Activity / Unpaid Work (up to 100 hours)/ all other requirements
apart from Alcohol or Mental Health Treatment or Drug
Rehabilitation Requirement.
Unpaid Work will offer all offenders the opportunity to acquire pro-
social attitudes and behaviours through modelling and reinforcement.
Additionally, where there is an assessed need, it will teach problem
solving and develop employment related skills.
The ECP model of change will continue to be applied in relation to
offenders who present a medium/high likelihood of reconviction.
All supervisors should model pro-social attitudes and behaviours and
this will take place within the context of a placement which meets
defined quality standards. Some supervisors will, through training, have
acquired the skills to deliver a structured input on problem solving to
appropriate offenders.
The opportunity to achieve an accredited award through undertaking
Vocational Skills Learning will be made available to medium/high
likelihood offenders who commit offences at a medium/high level of
seriousness through an Activity Requirement for Employment Training
and Education (ETE) or in those cases where it is appropriate by use of
up to 20% non-work allowance within the UW requirement. Such
offenders will be matched to placements where this provision is
available.
The Model of Delivery: (see 1.1.4: ECP Manual) The single model of
delivery can be replaced by a model which specifies minimum
standards of delivery for each group of offenders (see table on
following page).

received
The Model of Delivery
Activity (Low Likelihood/ Low Activity (Low Likelihood/ Medium Activity (Low Likelihood/ High Activity: (Medium or High
seriousness) seriousness) seriousness) Likelihood/ Any level of
seriousness)
Pre Sentence Fast Delivery PSR Fast Delivery PSR Standard Delivery PSR Standard Delivery PSR
Assess-ment OASys Risk of Harm OASys Risk of Harm Full OASys assessment Full OASys assessment
screening screening Basic Skills screening Basic Skills screening
Basic Skills screening Basic Skills screening
Post Individual interview Individual Interview Individual Interview Individual Interview
Sentence Review all assessments Review all assessments Review all assessments Review all assessments
Assess-ment made pre-sentence made pre-sentence made pre sentence made pre-sentence
Interview Complete existing ECP Complete existing ECP Complete existing ECP Complete existing ECP
(within 5 days
of sentence)
assessment form assessment form and assessment form and assessment form and
Agree standard Sentence Offender Needs and Offender Needs and Offender Needs and
Plan including any short term Placement Quality Matrix Placement Quality Matrix Placement Quality Matrix
vocational and employment Agree initial OASys Agree initial OASys Agree initial OASYS
work that could be Sentence Plan Sentence plan Sentence plan
undertaken within UW Referral for ETE, Basic Skills Referral for ETE, Basic Referral for ETEl Basic Skills
requirement. assessment where Skills assessment where assessment where
Referral for ETE, Basic Skills appropriate appropriate appropriate
assessment where Appointment for PPWS Appointment for PPWS Appointment for PPWS
appropriate
Appointment for PPWS
Pre Can be delivered individually Can be delivered individually Can be delivered Can be delivered individually
Placement or in group. Can be integrated or in group. Can be individually or in group. Can or in group. Can be
Work Session with PSAI integrated with PSAI be integrated with PSAI integrated with PSAI
(within 10 Local Unpaid Work induction Local Unpaid Work induction Local Unpaid Work Local Unpaid Work induction
days of
sentence)
including brief input on PSM Input on PSM, PSAW & induction Input on PSM, PSAW &
Health & Safety input (unless vocational work Input on PSM, PSAW & vocational work
this will be provided by Health & Safety input vocational work Health & Safety input
placement) (unless this will be provided Health & Safety input (unless this will be provided
by placement) (unless this will be provided by placement)
by placement)

The guidance in this document will be developed in the light of experience and to reflect comments received
CP Work Hours recorded in Hours recorded in Hours recorded in Hours recorded in

Placement Attendance & Participation Attendance & Participation Attendance & Participation Attendance & Participation
log log log log
Review of Sentence Plan Delivery of VSL/PSAW Delivery of VSL/PSAW Delivery of VSL/PSAW
where included in sentence where included in sentence where included in sentence
plan plan plan
Review of Sentence Plan Review of Sentence Plan Review of Sentence Plan
CP Work Repeat Offender Needs and Repeat Offender Needs Repeat Offender Needs and
Placement Placement Quality Matrix and Placement Quality Placement Quality Matrix
(contd) before any permanent Matrix before any before any permanent
reallocation of placement permanent reallocation of reallocation of placement
placement
Termination Review of Sentence Plan Interview to review OASys Interview to review OASys Interview to review OASys
Completion of Offender Sentence Plan Sentence Plan Sentence Plan
Questionnaire Completion of Offender Completion of Offender Completion of Offender
(Can take place on worksite) Questionnaire Questionnaire Questionnaire

The guidance in this document will be developed in the light of experience and to reflect comments received
Unpaid Work Staffing Structure: Within the new sentencing

framework, case managers will be known as offender managers.
Where there is a standalone Unpaid Work requirement, a tier 1 form of
offender management will usually be the appropriate one. Where the
Unpaid Work requirement is one amongst other requirements, a tier 2,
3 or 4 approach will be appropriate, depending upon the precise
structure of the sentence and the needs, circumstances and risks
associated with the offender. For example, a low OGRS offender with a
single requirement order who lives in a household with children on the
child protection register, or who is subsequently found to pose a
medium risk of harm, would be allocated to an offender management
tier above 1.
Within the offender management framework, different arrangements for
organising offender managers are possible.
e.g.: A specialist Unpaid Work Unit, with Offender Managers
delivering a tier 1 form of offender management alongside other
staff.
or: An offender management unit in which offender managers
hold orders hold orders with Unpaid Work requirements,
standalone or otherwise, alongside a range of others, liaising
closely with other Unpaid Work staff in a separate unit delivering
placements.
Further guidance will be issued on the detail of delivering Unpaid Work

within different models and the role of the Quality Assurance Manager.
Staff Roles and Responsibilities (See 1.1.5 ECP manual)
This is an initial consideration of how the staff roles outlined in the ECP
manual translate to the delivery of Unpaid Work. This is an optional
model for areas, not a mandatory one and it is recognised that further
work will have to be done on roles and responsibilities in the light of the
introduction of offender management structures.
Role Staff Grade Area of responsibility within Unpaid Work

Scheme SPO or Overall responsibility for Unpaid Work scheme
Manager equivalent
Supervision of Quality Assurance Manager
Supervision of other staff as required
Line management off supervisors working exclusively with low
risk offenders unless undertaken by QAM or Unit Manager.
Liaison with LSC or other funding bodies and college providers
Liaison with CDRPs, local authorities and community groups
(at an appropriate level, this can be delegated to Placement
Manager)

received
Unit Senior CSO, Unit Management responsibility where Scheme Manager covers
Manager Probation several Unpaid Work Units
Officer or
Line management of supervisors working exclusively with low
equivalent
likelihood/low seriousness offenders
Quality Senior CSO, Responsibilities remain the same as in the ECP manual but not
Assur- PO or all tasks will take place in relation to all staff.
ance equivalent
Completion of PSM Action checklists and audio/video PSM
Manager
monitoring checklists where supervisors are working with
offenders who are not low likelihood/low seriousness
Facilitating Quality Assurance Groups for supervisors who work
with offenders who are not low likelihood/low seriousness
Advice on placement suitability
Audit of Unpaid Work Sentence Plans and Placement Quality
Standards checklists
Supervision of other staff as required
Offender Tier will Post Sentence Assessment Interviews
Manager depend upon
Sentence Planning and Reviews
local
arrange- Allocation of cases to placements
ments
Enforcement
Place- CSO or Liaison with local authorities/ community groups
ment equivalent
Setting up and managing placements
Manager
Liaison with placement providers
Use of Placement Quality Standards checklist
Organisation and oversight of work projects
Ensure appropriate use of Reparation marque
Oversight of weekly attendance and progress
Super- Delivery of PPWS to medium/high likelihood offenders
visor
Supervision of offenders on work placement
(working
with all Use of Pro Social Modelling
offend-
Delivery of Problem Solving at Work input
ers)
Super- Supervision of low risk offenders on work placement
visor
Use of Pro Social modelling
(working
with low
risk/low
serious-
ness
offend-
ers)
Tutor Delivery of Vocational Skills Learning in employment related
skills in the workplace
Assessment of performance and management of portfolios
7.2 Section 2: ‘A Theoretical Overview of ECP’

Overview: This chapter remains unchanged at present and still
provides a useful explanation of the theory which underpinned the

received
development of the Enhanced Community Punishment scheme.

However, it is likely to be reissued in the future as research findings
become available.
7.3 Section 3: ‘ECP: Theory, Design and Content’

Targeting ECP: Unpaid Work is available for offenders who have
committed offences throughout the sentencing range as long as any
risk of harm which an offender might present to the public can be
managed. However, the form which Unpaid Work will take, and its
intensity will vary depending upon identified needs and the likelihood of
reconviction.
Integrated Case Management: The principles of Integrated Case

Management continue to apply to the Community Order where an
offender can be subject to several requirements and engaged in
several interventions at any time, or over time. The specification
however, as outlined in this section, will only apply to medium/high
likelihood orders. This will be more fully covered in further guidance on
Offender Management and Unpaid Work.
Post Sentence Assessment Interview: In low likelihood/low

seriousness cases OASys 2 will not be completed and there are likely
to be cases sentenced to standalone UW requirements with no report
at all. There will be no expectation that dynamic risk factors are
addressed or that structured learning opportunities are offered. When
available, offenders in this category can make use of these but this is
not key to the purpose of the order. There will be a Risk of Harm
screening document which should be reviewed at this point and
updated if any further relevant information comes to light. For all other
cases, a full OASys assessment should be completed.
Quality will continue to be an important issue in setting up and
maintaining work placements. However, when only a limited number of
placements which score highly on the Placement Quality Standards
checklist are available, priority should be given to offenders who have a
medium or high likelihood of reconviction. The Offender Needs and
Placement Quality Matrix need not be used for low likelihood/ low
seriousness offenders. A placement assessment form for this category
will be issued. The existing ECP Assessment form can be used,
pending reissue. In the case of low risk/low seriousness offenders,
there will not be an OASys assessment available so the information for
this form will need to be collected in the course of the PSAI. It will be
necessary to include in Section 4 of this form details of any other
requirements, including the length of an Activity Requirement. NPD will
undertake the development of sentence plan and placement suitability
form that will be later added to NOMIS.
Pre-Placement Work Session: For all but low likelihood/low

seriousness offenders, this will be delivered by Unpaid Work

received
supervisors as it has been within the ECP scheme although areas will
need to modify some of the content so that it reflects the new
legislation and delivery arrangements.
Areas will have considerable flexibility in what is delivered to low
likelihood/low seriousness offenders as long as they are given:
• An explanation of the conditions of their order and the expectations
of them
• Health and Safety input
Areas may continue to deliver the full PPWS to all offenders or may
deliver it in a simplified format to the low likelihood/ low seriousness
group, depending upon local circumstances. If the same material is
delivered to all, it must be made clear that specialist provision such as
VSL will not necessarily be available to all offenders.
If an area decides to deliver a separate, shorter induction to low
likelihood/ low seriousness offenders, this could be delivered by any
Unpaid Work staff with the skills to give information to a group of
offenders.
In low likelihood/low seriousness cases a standard (non-OASys)
Sentence Plan should be prepared covering:
• The number of hours ordered (i.e. the objective to be met)
• Type of work to be undertaken (i.e. activity to be deployed)
• The timing and length of the requirement (i.e. timescales)
• Where appropriate, details of any vocational and employment
related work to be undertaken using up to 20% of the hours
ordered
• The named Offender Manager (i.e. responsibility)
• A review of the Risk of Harm screening
A template will be issued as soon as possible. In the meantime, areas
should make their own arrangements to record this information as a
plan.
In all other cases an OASys Sentence Plan should be completed.
Attendance & Participation Log: This must be completed for all

offenders. Areas remain free to determine the format of the log but, to
comply with National Standards, this should include, as a minimum:
• Hours worked during the week
• Indication of whether the offender’s work and conduct were
satisfactory
• Total hours worked on order so far
• Hours remaining to be worked

received
The accurate completion and communication of information from this

log will be especially important within structures where offender
management and the delivery of UW are physically separate.
Sentence Plan Reviews: For low likelihood/ low seriousness

offenders, the standard Sentence Plan must be reviewed every 16
weeks, using the information in the Attendance and Participation Log. If
the order is progressing as it should, this can be a purely administrative
exercise and need not involve the offender, but will involve a member
of staff acting as their representative. If there are problems with
compliance, there should be a face to face review with the offender.
For all other offenders, there will be an OASys Sentence Plan subject
to the usual process of review.
Many requirements made in relation to the low likelihood/low

seriousness group will be short orders and completed within the first
sixteen weeks before a review is required. In these circumstances, the
case should move straight to the termination stage.
Enforcement Procedures: Enforcement Procedures should take

place in accordance with National Standards 2005 and will be the
responsibility of the Offender Manager. In the case of multi requirement
orders, if an offender fails to comply with two instructions in the course
of one day, this will only be counted as one failure.
Within an Unpaid Work context, it could be that an offender does not
attend for Unpaid Work and also fails to attend a subsequent ETE
appointment which would count towards an Activity requirement on the
same day. This counts as one failure to comply with the whole
sentence.
Termination Interview: A formal Termination Interview in the case of

low likelihood/ low seriousness offenders is not strictly necessary.
However, National Standards 2005 specifies a minimum of two
contacts between offender and Offender Manager during an order,
where the case is being managed at tier 1. Therefore, if a second
contact has not taken place in the course of the order, it will need to
take place at the end. Where there have already been two contacts, a
termination review, not requiring face to face contact will be sufficient.
However, all offenders should continue to complete the Offender
Questionnaire since this provides a useful user perspective for areas.
Arrangements may be made for low likelihood/ low seriousness
offenders to complete these at the workplace. The questionnaires on
the low likelihood/ low seriousness group should be stored and
reported upon separately so that they can be differentiated from the
others.
If research is undertaken in the future on the Offender Questionnaire,
either nationally or locally, it will be necessary to be able to distinguish
whether offenders have received the accredited intervention or not.

received
Meanwhile, many areas have found local information derived from the
questionnaire useful in managing Unpaid Work and it is important that it
should continue to be used consistently.
Monitoring Integrated Case Management: The requirement for

Quality Assurance Managers to review 10% of cases will not apply to
the low likelihood/low seriousness group. It might well be that areas do
choose to have their own arrangements for monitoring this provision in
order to ensure its quality but this will not be mandatory.
Pro-Social Modelling: Pro-Social Modelling has become an

established part of good practice within the Probation Service and its
use is not confined to Unpaid Work. All Probation Staff should continue
to use a Pro-Social Modelling approach in all dealings with offenders
performing Unpaid Work.
Most of the guidance in this section therefore remains unchanged
under the new arrangements.
The exception to this is the size of workgroups. In the case of low
likelihood/ low seriousness offenders, the number of offenders per
supervisor need no longer be set at six as long as larger groups are
assessed as meeting health and safety requirements.
However, where supervisor shortages make it impossible to maintain
this ratio, an increase in the size of workgroups should be considered
in preference to delaying the start of orders or failing to offer offenders
work in line with National Standards.
Supervisors should continue to be trained in pro-social modelling, using
the accredited training module. However, where a supervisor works
exclusively with low likelihood/ low seriousness offenders, it will be
sufficient for them to complete a general pro-social modelling course.
The monitoring forms remain useful tools for the monitoring of the
performance of all staff and delivering effective supervision. However,
the four specified checklists now need only be used when staff are
working with offenders who present a medium/high likelihood of
reconviction and/or have committed offences of medium/high
seriousness. Areas may wish to continue to use them with all staff but
this is not mandatory.
It will continue to be important that all placement providers offer
positive, pro-social modelling and this expectation must be
communicated in locally and nationally produced information.
Problem Solving at Work: This remains a useful way for supervisors

to structure the working day and they should continue to be trained in
this approach and make use of it unless they are working only with low
likelihood/ low seriousness offenders, in which case its use is
discretionary.

received
Vocational Skills Learning and Employment related training:

Vocational Skills Learning refers to learning which is embedded in
carrying out unpaid work and many effective and robust schemes have
been set up to provide this. Under the new arrangements, a broader
range of activities will be made available for offenders. Those
offenders in the low likelihood/ low seriousness group who will not
usually be participating in formal VSL schemes may, where
appropriate, have access to short term vocational and employment
services.
Up to 20% of the hours ordered under an Unpaid Work requirement
may be ‘used for completing basic literacy or other work necessary to
enable the offender to gain maximum benefit from the sentence or to
provide qualifications related to work undertaken as part of the
sentence’ 1 .
This can be used for the delivery of Vocational Skills Learning or to
enable offenders to engage with other ETE provision. Operational
Unpaid Work staff will need to have good knowledge of and links with
these services both within the probation area and the locality.
Where an Activity Requirement for ETE is made alongside an Unpaid
Work Requirement, its aim is to ‘provide an assessment of the
Employment, Training and Education needs and to facilitate
participation in ETE related activities to improve employability’.
With cases of medium or high seriousness, an Activity requirement, up
to a maximum of 60 days, may be made alongside an Unpaid Work
Requirement. The offender’s participation in the Activity requirement
must be an additional element to the completion of the Unpaid Work
hours.
If the VSL activity can be defined as a separate activity from the UW
(e.g. a learning hour or a one to one session with a tutor), this can
count towards an Activity Requirement. If the scheme is entirely
embedded then it cannot and an Activity Requirement will need to be
delivered through other ETE provision. It will be necessary for the
Offender Manager to record clearly which of these two options
applies. 2
Whilst the principles of and the rationale for Vocational Skills Learning
remain in accordance with those outlined in sections 3-5 of the ECP
manual, the Activity Requirement broadens the range of activity to
incorporate a wider Basic Skills/Employability agenda.
The successful delivery of the Activity requirement will depend on
strong links between the units delivering Unpaid Work and ETE
provision. It is important that these are maintained as a means of
providing a concrete, learning experience which will be accessible to
many offenders.
1
National Standards 2005
2
Guidance on Activity Requirement for ETE

received
As with the Vocational Skills Learning delivered through the UW

requirement, the Activity Requirement for ETE should continue to be
targeted at offenders with poor employment related skills which
contribute to their offending.
It is critical that report writers consider issues of motivation before
proposing an Activity requirement and also that the Offender Manager
makes prompt application for the deletion of the requirement if the
offender remains in work or training for 13 weeks.
Placement Quality Standards: The process of applying Placement

Quality Standards and matching offenders through their OASys
identified needs will, in the Unpaid Work context, only apply to
offenders with OGRS scores of 41 or above who have committed
offences of medium/high seriousness.
This does not however mean that the quality of placements offered to
low likelihood/ low seriousness offenders is not important. It is generally
recognised that the implementation of ECP brought about a significant
improvement in the standard of placements and it is important that this
is not reversed.
However, the criteria used to measure placements for low risk
offenders will be different with the emphasis on the purposeful and safe
nature of the work and the opportunity to make a visible contribution to
the local community.
Arrangements for the use and review of the Placement Quality
Standards checklist and monitoring by Quality Assurance Managers
will continue where offenders with OGRS scores of 41 and above are
working, whether in a group or on individual placements.
Section 3.6.6 in the ECP manual indicates that areas should devise a
local checklist comprising features of a placement which do not have a
direct bearing on the rehabilitative impact of the placement work. These
checklists will provide an interim tool to assess placements for low
risk/low seriousness offenders, pending the issue of a revised
Placement Quality Standards form.
The pro-social features of the working environment, outlined in 3.6.7,
represent good practice and are consistent with treating both offenders
and staff with respect. Suitable placements for any offenders will
demonstrate these characteristics. All Placement Providers should
continue to be invited to briefings on Pro-Social Modelling.

received
7.4 Section 4: Implementing Enhanced Community Punishment
Maximising Scheme Integrity: This section makes the point that

‘What Works’ literature indicates that the effectiveness of an
intervention is related to the rigour with which that intervention is
delivered and stresses the importance of ensuring scheme integrity .
This integrity will remain just as important in the delivery of Unpaid
Work to medium/high likelihood offenders in order that Unpaid Work
retains the rehabilitative potential of ECP. Unpaid Work for low
likelihood offenders, where the purpose is punishment, should be
delivered in accordance with NPD guidance and will not require areas
to adhere to the full accredited scheme.
The Offender Questionnaire should continue to be completed by all
offenders as it provides valuable information for the management of
local schemes and a potential element in the future arrangements for
the Quality Management of Offender Management in general.
Maximising Awareness of Unpaid Work: New leaflets on Unpaid

Work and the Activity Requirement will shortly be made available by
the National Probation Directorate. Any existing briefing material should
be modified to reflect the language of the Criminal Justice Act and to
include an explanation of how low likelihood/low seriousness offenders
are managed.
Maximising Compliance: The Attendance and Participation log

should be used with all offenders. Unpaid Work rules will not differ from
the Community Punishment rules outlined in 4.4.1
8. Civil Renewal and Community Engagement

It is key to the developing NOMS Communities and Civil Renewal
strategy 3 that local people should be actively involved in working with
offenders, assisting us in reducing crime leading to greater trust and
confidence in NOMS and the Criminal Justice system.
We live in a diverse society in which there are many communities,

defined, for example, geographically, culturally and by faith and
ethnicity. It is important to engage with all these groups in order to
harness the contribution which they can make to reducing offending
and to seek ways in which offenders can ‘payback’ for the harm caused
by crime.
Unpaid Work is a critical element in this, providing an opportunity for

offenders to make amends, in a visible way, to communities. This work
can both increase public confidence that justice is seen to be done and
also make a real contribution to improving the local environment,
community safety and well being.
3
NOMS Communities and Civil Renewal Consultation Paper

received
The offender can also gain from this approach both practically, through
gaining new skills, and also through developing a sense of pride and
ownership in the work undertaken.
In planning the delivery of Unpaid Work, areas should ensure that
communities have an opportunity to indicate the type of work they
would like to see done. This will of course have to be balanced against
a realistic view of what Unpaid Workers can safely achieve but it is
important that a dialogue with local communities takes place.
It is recognised that some areas have already made progress towards
this. There cannot be any uniform model across the National Probation
Service as the individual nature of local communities and networks will
determine the most effective means of engaging with them.
With the implementation of the national Clean Up campaign, there will
be a developing focus on local involvement and areas should:
• Ensure that they are developing and improving links at a strategic
level (e.g. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships) and at an
operational level (e.g. local police, voluntary and community
organisations).
• Put in place monitoring systems to ensure that all sections of the
community, including black, minority ethnic and faith groups are
contributing to this debate and benefiting from Unpaid Work.
Further national guidance will be issued on this important strand of
work.
Reparation Marque: A revised reparation marque will be available to

all areas from Spring 2005 through NPD. This will take the form of a
metal, weatherproof plaque, bearing the ‘Making Amends’ logo, leaving
space for the area to insert the appropriate inscription.
Whilst it is clearly impractical to use this for short, ‘one-off’ jobs, areas
should make use of them wherever a significant project has take place
involving the contribution of offenders undertaking Unpaid Work.
Work is also to be undertaken within NPD on providing distinctive
badging for vehicles,clothing, equipment etc
The fixing of the marque should be built into planning for all work
projects from the outset, including initial discussions with the
beneficiaries of the work undertaken whose permission for using the
marque will be necessary.
It is important that there is an effective link between Unpaid Work units

and Public Relations staff in areas to ensure promote projects which
make a particular contribution to communities so that they can be
recognised and celebrated in the local media.

received
Criminal Justice Act 2003 Implementation: ETE
PC25/2005 – Annex C
EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND EDUCATION (ETE) IN

COMMUNITY ORDERS GUIDANCE
1. Overview
1.1 NPS areas should ensure that offenders have a number of pathways
into Employment, Training and Education. This guidance deals with the
delivery of ETE within Community Orders and in particular, as a
specific Activity Requirement.
1.2 An Activity Requirement may be used to provide an Education,

Training and Employment intervention as part of the new community
order. The order and any requirements will be dependent on offence
seriousness, the likelihood of reconviction and the expressed purpose
of the sentence, for example rehabilitation or punishment or reparation.
Offenders may need further ETE work beyond the court-ordered
requirement to ensure that all of their identified needs are met.
1.3 Arranging and sequencing ETE processes may become more complex
as offenders become subject to a range of court-ordered requirements
with the new sentences of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. NPS Areas
will need to have effective offender management arrangements in
place for offenders who are undergoing ETE interventions.
2. ETE via unpaid work, supervision or other interventions
2.1 For offenders subject to a stand alone Unpaid Work requirement where
appropriate, up to 20% of the hours can be used to provide basic skills
and employment related interventions. Offenders whose offence
seriousness and criminogenic need suggests two or more
requirements may be sentenced, amongst other combinations, to both
an Unpaid Work and an ETE Activity Requirement.
2.2 Offenders should also be able to access ETE assessment and

interventions through the Supervision Requirement of an order or as
part of licence supervision or as a voluntary ‘add-on’ to other
interventions, for example hostel residence. Areas will need to design
and introduce processes to address this range of circumstances.
3. ETE as an Activity Requirement
3.1 The aims of an Activity Requirement for ETE are to provide a full
assessment of Employment, Training and Education needs and/or to
facilitate participation in ETE related activities to improve employability.
PC25/2005 – Annex C Page 1

received
3.2 The elements of the ETE requirement for an individual offender may
include:
• specialist assessments for employment and Skills for Life (including

basic skills)
• a range of interventions designed to secure long-term compliance with
job seeking or vocational training objectives
• a range of ETE related activities that will improve the ability of the
individual to participate in and make a positive contribution to the
community and play an active and a constructive part in society.
4. Determining the length of the requirement
4.1 An important principle in the Act is that the court needs to be satisfied
that ‘it is feasible to secure compliance with the requirement’. (Section
201-3b). Report writers need to assess whether the requirement would,
with any other requirements of the community order, have a proper ‘fit’
with offence seriousness and offender risk and need and that overall
compliance is achievable.
4.2 The Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) identifies three bands of

offence seriousness for Community Sentences: low, medium and high.
4.3 For offences of low seriousness, the SGC advice indicates that there
should normally be only one requirement. For this group the most
commonly used primary sentences are likely to be either unpaid work
or curfew, but any Activity Requirements would normally be for 8 -10
days.
4.4 For offences of medium seriousness the SGC refers to the Activity
Requirement as being a challenging and significant part of the
sentence. For offences in this seriousness band a Requirement for a
period of 20-30 days is indicated.
4.5 For offences of high seriousness a requirement of ‘up to 60 days’ is

indicated (but actual proposals should be more specific, see para 4.7
below)
4.6 The wording of the Act requires attendance ‘on’ so many days not ‘for’
so many days so the length of the attendance can be matched to the
provision and need. Each attendance on a separate day will count as
‘one day’ for the Requirement, but multiple attendance on the same
day will only count as one day.
4.7 To reflect SGC guidance, Areas should have three levels of ETE
activity requirements available. These might be banded as low/8-10
days, medium/20-30 days and high/ 40- 60 days. They should clearly
reflect the level of seriousness of offending assessed by the court, the
specific ETE needs of the offender and taking account of any other

received
sentencing proposals. i.e. the overall ‘package’ should reflect offence

seriousness and offender need. For the ETE Requirement this may
not reflect fully the identified level of ETE need because of other
competing requirements in the Order. However, the activity
requirement aims to provide a contribution to the rehabilitation element
of the order and further ETE work can continue once the specific
requirement is completed. The Sentencing Guidelines Council stresses
that any requirements need to be demanding, but not so demanding
that compliance is not achievable. The guiding principles are those of
proportionality and suitability.
4.8 The exact nature of the interventions to be included is for areas to

determine, though paragraph 7. (below) gives examples, and further
guidance will be issued as necessary. The exact number of days to be
specified in an Activity Requirement is ultimately for the court to decide.
5. Court Reports
5.1 Where offenders are initially assessed as having an ETE need as part
of a fast delivery report an 8 - 10 day Activity Requirement for ETE
would normally be appropriate. Longer requirements should normally
only be proposed where there is a full OASys assessment and a
standard delivery report.
5.2 In the proposals to courts, the length of the ETE requirement should be
clearly stated in days, giving details of the actual content and location
of attendance. This advice reflects the spirit of transparency in
sentencing that is central to the Act.
6. Activities that can be included
6.1 In order to deliver services that can be included within an activity

requirement, Skills for Life and Basic Skills providers should have a
contractual condition that commits them to co-operate in the
management of the Activity Requirement. This is reflected in the
Offender Learning Journey approach and that will form the basis of the
new working arrangements between NOMS, OLSU and LSCs. These
are planned to be rolled out in the three development regions by
August 2005, and in the remaining six regions (excluding Wales) by
August 2006.
6.2 At national level the Department for Work and Pensions has advised
that the activity requirement ought not to be treated as part of a welfare
to work programme ie Use of Jobcentre Plus Welfare to Work
programmes, in particular New Deal, progress2work,
progress2workLink-UP. It is recognised that where these programmes
are currently delivered by contracted providers, some local areas have
arranged feedback information so that contacts are counted for
national standards but this activity is not directly court mandated.

received
7. Elements of a requirement
In the table below are examples of the types of intervention that might
be contained in any requirement.
8-10 days 20-30 days 40 - 60 days
• Employment assessment • Employment assessment • Employment assessment
• Basic Skills assessment • Basic Skills assessment • Basic Skills assessment
• Basic employment • Basic employment • Basic employment

interventions, for interventions, for interventions, for
example offence example offence example offence
disclosure work, career disclosure work, career disclosure work, career
guidance. guidance. guidance.
• Attendance at Skills for • Participation on a more • Participation on a more

Life sessions that will comprehensive comprehensive
assist in engaging the employment skills employment skills
offender in longer-term programme. programme.
work.
• Job search, work • Job search, work
• Other offender towards a test or towards a test or
interventions linked to the qualification. qualification.
purpose of requirement.
• Attendance at Skills for • Attendance at Skills for
Life sessions that will Life sessions that will
assist in engaging the assist in engaging the
offender in longer-term offender in longer-term
work. work.
• Other offender • Other offender

interventions linked to interventions linked to
the purpose of the the purpose of the
requirement. requirement.
8. Communications
8.1 Areas should ensure that this guidance is shared and understood by
offender managers, court staff and PSR writers.
8.2 As part of their CJ Act training, courts will receive general information
about the new Community Order and the application of potential
requirements. A Bench Manual is also being prepared to help with
understanding of the new sentence requirements. However when
liaising with the courts, areas should ensure that they have explained in

received
clear terms how the ETE Activity Requirement will be applied in their
area. This should include specific information on the local content of
the requirement.

received
Appendix 1
Detailed Guidance on the Activity Requirement
1. Targeting Guidance
1.1 Standard Delivery PSR. The relevance of any requirement will be

dependent on the OASys assessment, the seriousness of the offence
and the stated purpose of sentencing. If the report writer intends to
propose an ETE activity condition, an OASys assessment will need to
indicate that there is a clear ETE criminogenic need. This might
commonly be indicated by an OASys ‘raw’ score of 5 or above
although the reporting officer may wish to consider other factors when
reaching a view as to the most appropriate disposal in a particular
case. The level of seriousness of the offence should reflect the length
of any requirement proposed, considered together with other elements
in the order.
1.2 Fast Delivery PSR. These reports will normally be targeted at those
assessed as having a low level of seriousness and low/medium risk of
harm. They will not usually include a full OASys assessment. In
reaching a view on these cases, it is suggested that the offender’s work
status at that time and in the last 3 months is used to assess whether
the Activity Requirement is likely to be appropriate. If in regular
employment, no such requirement is likely to be needed, otherwise an
8- 10-day employment/basic skills requirement should be considered.
Offence seriousness, length of requirements and type of report
Level of Offence ETE days Assessed through

seriousness
High 40-60 OASys for Standard
Delivery PSR
Medium 20-30 OASys for Standard
Delivery PSR
Low 8-10 Fast Delivery PSR
2. National Standards Issues
2.1 The Activity Requirement must be managed in accordance with the

expectations of the relevant new (2005) National Standards.
2.2 Offenders must be given a written record of the days that they have
completed.
2.3 The new draft National Standard for Activity Requirements states that
the Activity should start within 15 working days of sentence and
offenders should be offered three contacts in the first 4 weeks of the

received
intervention. For orders with a number of requirements it will be

appropriate to consider sequencing the interventions to maximise the
impact of the order on the rehabilitation of the offender. For example,
when the community order includes a drug rehabilitation requirement
(DRR) as well as an ETE activity requirement, it may be appropriate for
some of the drug treatment to be completed before work is undertaken
on the ETE activity requirement. In this situation, management
authorisation must be obtained and recorded on the offender’s file.
2.4 What happens if an offender finds and keeps work or training?

The Act stresses the primacy of employment. Offender contact should
not prevent or inhibit work or training. (Section 217). If an offender finds
work or training, the key test is whether they keep it. If an offender finds
and keeps work or training the following actions are open to the
offender manager:
• Application of the requirement can be suspended (with manager

authorisation) for the period of work or training.
• If the placement is sustained for 13 weeks then the offender
manager can return to court and ask for the requirement to be
removed.
• If the offender does not keep employment/training continuously for
13 weeks, then the requirement should re-commence at the point it
had reached when the offender gained employment/training.
2.5 What happens when the Activity Requirement ends and the
offender still requires ETE interventions?
For those offenders who are on a supervision requirement, this can be
achieved through this element in a similar way to current practice, i.e.
through inclusion in the offender management or sentence plan. For
other offenders it may be that further engagement on this work will be
offered on a voluntary basis by an ETE provider.
3. Vocational and Employment related training
3.1 Guided Skills Learning/vocational related training schemes have been

set up in areas as part of the implementation of the Enhanced
Community Punishment scheme. This enables offenders to make use
of the opportunities to learn employment related skills in the context of
performing Unpaid Work and achieve accredited awards. Much of the
learning and assessment takes place on site and is integrated into the
Unpaid Work undertaken. Under National Standards where appropriate
for some individuals, up to 20% of the hours ordered may be used for
this activity.
3.2 When an offender has both an Activity Requirement and Unpaid Work
Requirement, the key principle is that the offender’s participation in
the Activity Requirement must be an additional element to the

received
completion of the Unpaid Work hours. For example, it must take

place at a separate time in a different place, or with different staff.
3.3 The following is intended to provide further guidance in these cases:
• When an offender has an Unpaid Work Requirement and an Activity

Requirement and the GSL is offered as a separate activity to
Unpaid Work then GSL can be used against the 20% allowance or
as a contribution to the Activity Requirement. The Offender
manager will need to decide and record which of these options
applies.
• If GSL has been embedded into the Unpaid Work placement and
the offender has an activity requirement. The embedded activity can
only count towards the Unpaid Work.
• Where assessed as appropriate to the achievement of the purposes

of the sentence offenders on Unpaid Work without an Activity
Requirement may have up to 20% of their Unpaid Work hours used
for completing employment ,vocational and basic literacy work.
Areas may use both their ETE services as well their embedded
UPW provision for this group.
3.4 Can existing Skills for Life and basic skills provisions be used as
part of a community order?
Yes, subject to the current contract with an area’s provider. The
enforcement of such activity will be a new departure for some areas in
their partnership agreements with LSCs. It will need to be built into
future procurement and contracts with providers. It will be included in
the draft Common Delivery and Offender Learning Journey frameworks
with the OLSU.
3.5 Can elements of the Individual Learning Plan be used towards an

Activity Requirement?
Yes, provided this has been negotiated with the local providers. In
some areas it may need to be negotiated with providers and the local
LSC.
3.6 Can an Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) appointment be

included in the Activity Requirement?
This will be dependent on how local services are contracted. For some
in-house and probation funded partners this may be possible. If the
provision is LSC funded, this will be dependant on the contract
negotiated with the local LSC and may require some renegotiation with
the local provider and LSC.
3.7 What happens with the new arrangements for the OLASS project
that will be implemented in the pathfinder regions in August 2005
and the rest of the England in August 2006?

received
The two key documents that outline the new arrangements are the
Offender Learning Journey and the Common Delivery frameworks
These documents form the basis for the new service. Both contain
sections that outline the need for the new service to work with
offenders within the context of the new Act.
3.8 What is the situation in Wales?

This guidance applies equally to Wales. The Welsh Assembly is
currently consulting on basic skills arrangements in Wales and the NPD
with Welsh colleagues will be working to ensure strategic and funding
decisions support the intentions of this circular.
3.9 What about ETE Activity Requirements that are part of Intensive
Orders?
These will require careful management. There is a National Standards
expectation that the Activity Requirement starts 15 days after the
making of the order. It may be possible to undertake the detailed
employment or basic skills assessment in that period. However, if an
offender is undertaking intensive drug treatment, for example in a
residential setting, the condition may need to be suspended until the
offender can start the activity element. This will need the authorisation
of a manager.
3.10 Could the Activity Requirement affect entitlement to Job Seekers

Allowance?
The advice from The Dept of Work and Pensions is as follows:
‘To retain entitlement to JSA an offender must be available for 40 hours

each week and actively seeking employment (ASE). When an offender
is attending LSC funded or Welsh equivalent provision of 16 hours or
less this will not normally affect their entitlement to JSA provided they
continue to satisfy the availability and ASE conditionality. Offenders
undertaking provision of more than 16 hours a week risk losing their
entitlement to JSA. Where provision is not LSC or Welsh equivalent
funded, offenders will need to discuss with their Jobcentre Plus office
the possible impacts on their benefit entitlement.’
Further guidance on this matter will be issued as necessary.

received

UK Home Office: PC25 2005

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UK Home Office: PC25 2005

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003:

IMPLEMENTATION ON 4 APRIL Probation

National Probation Directorate

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection

• New recall arrangements

• New deferred sentencing arrangements

PC25/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003: Implementation on 4 April 2005 2

3. Information for offenders

4. Liaison with courts

5. Monitoring and feedback

FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACTS

Immediate requests for clarification should be referred to:

PC25/2005 – Criminal Justice Act 2003: Implementation on 4 April 2005 3

National Implementation Guide

Edition 2 version 5F – May 2005

Section 2 Details of the Requirements 37

National Probation Service Page 1

Section 3 An overview of the sentencing provisions 53

Section 4 Sentencing, Requirements & combinations 65

Section 5 Supervision and the management of orders 80

Amendments made in this version (updated from version 4F which was 91

Page 2 National Probation Service

Separate guidance on other more detailed issues will be issued separately.

National Probation Service Page 3

ii) Definition of terms

The Sentencing Guidelines Council Guidelines

Copies of the documents can be found at: www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk

Persistent and prolific

National Probation Service Page 5

Page 6 National Probation Service

1 – A brief guide for report writers

Restriction Practical Support Personal Change Treatment Control

National Probation Service Page 7

Table 1 Criminal Justice Act 2003 – Requirements

Unpaid work Low 40 – 80 hours* ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

(specified) Activity Medium 20 – 30 days* ‘Fast Delivery’ rehabilitation

Prohibited Activity Low up to 24 / 36 months ‘Fast Delivery’ punishment

Page 8 National Probation Service

1.2 Sentencing process

The new sentencing framework uses the following process:

Diagram 1 – Adjournment 1 - Court determines level of seriousness

of the suitability of particular

Diagram 2 – Assessment 2 - NPS assessment of the offender & type of report

National Probation Service Page 9

Diagram 3 – Targeting 3 - NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements

Intervention Targeting Medium

Fines and Compensation

with seriousness they should Low 2

combinations in the nearest

This diagram is shown enlarged

Diagram 4 – Moderation 4 - NPS checks combination matches seriousness

level of intervention against

reducing the level of

Proposal 5 - Post sentence - Initial allocation to OM Tier

Sentence Plan. The proposal 1 Long Restrict Change

is NOT phrased in terms of 8 Medium

Fines and Compensation

11 Court makes Order. 3 Short UW Short

allocated to the appropriate

Page 10 National Probation Service

Court makes initial 3 - NPS selects suitable combination of Requirements

Fines and Compensation