COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS: AN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCE

• Date: 01 December 1991
• Author: BALA REDDY
• Published date: 01 December 1991

An attempt is made in this paper to trace the development of the Community Service Orders in the United Kingdom in order to assess its usefulness as an alternative to existing punishment methods in the Criminal Justice System in Singapore.

Origins of Community Service Orders — Purpose and Reasons for Introduction.

The aims of the Community Service Orders would first be put in perspective and in the second part of this paper the recently introduced National Standards would be considered to give some indication on how enforcement problems have been tackled in the United Kingdom.

Several factors make the analysis of the aims of Community Service Orders a difficult and elusive matter. In particular the controversy surrounding the definition of the various sentencing aims and the ambiguity about the use of reparation as a criminal sanction should perhaps be mentioned. The classical principles of sentencing an offender are summarised in four words: retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation.1

The idea of an offender paying for his wrongdoing by working for the Community is perhaps as old as the Old Testament precept that, where reparation to an individual victim was not possible for whatever reason, it should be made to the Community instead.2 The idea has also been traced to the introduction of Houses of Corrections in 1553, to deal with vagabonds by prescribing hard work as a means of reducing idleness.3 But the immediate legislative history of the Community Service Orders should start with the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System set up in 1966 under the chairmanship of Mr Kenneth Younger, which had been asked inter-alia, to consider “… what changes and additions should be made in the range of non-custodial penalties, disabilities and other requirements which may be imposed on offenders.”4 A subcommittee under the chairmanship of Baroness Wootton was entrusted the above

task. The Wootton Committee in its report,5 advocated strongly the need for non-custodial measures as direct alternatives to custody saying

“…our enquiries revealed a widespread recognition on the part of sentencers that some entirely new form of non-custodial penalty was required…Formidable though the practical difficulties might be, we could not but be impressed by the need for some new and radical development. It was thus that we were led to what is the most amibitious proposal of this report — namely that in appropriate cases, offenders should be required to engage in some form of part-time service to the community.”6

The Committee also appears to have given due weight to the diverse philosophical basis of penal sanctions to find support for its innovative proposal when it observed,

“To some, it would be simply a more constructive and cheaper alternative to short sentences of imprisonment; by others it would be seen as introducing into the penal system a new dimension with an emphasis on reparation to the community; others again would regard it as a means of giving effect to the old adage that the punishment should fit the crime; while still others would stress the value of bringing offenders into close contact with those members of the community who are most in need of help and support.”7

It should be noted that throughout the report very little emphasis had been put on the type of enforcement problems that could be encountered. These were not inconceivable, and it is submitted, were perhaps underplayed. The Committee had recommended that the scheme should be tested in a few probation areas on an experimental basis.

The Community Service Orders scheme was thus in early 1973, introduced in six probation areas.8 The scheme was found viable and in August 1974 the Home Secretary gave his permission for other probation and after-care committees to submit details of Community Service Schemes for approval and implementation. Thus by 1975 the Community Service Order was available virtually to all areas in England and Wales. The scheme had also

received very promising comments from a group of probation officers who reported,

“Community Service by offenders is a success, almost certainly the most significant success among penal developments of the last three decades.”9

Legal Structure of Community Service Orders

The legislative framework for Community Service Orders is to be found in the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 197310, with minor but significant changes by the Criminal Law Act 1977.

First let us briefly look at how the Community Service Orders were expected to be implemented before we address the issue of enforcement. A Court can order any offender over the age of sixteen who is convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment to perform unpaid work on behalf of the community for a minimum of 40 hours subject to a maximum of 240 hours.11 The nature of the work to be performed is left to the decision of Community Service Organisers. Although the work is often to be done for a few hours at regular intervals, all the hours which the Court ordered must normally be finished within twelve months of the date on which the order was made. In the event that the offender fails to work as required or if the order is revoked for any other reason, he can be sentenced for the original offence.

Before a Community Service Order can be made the offender has to...